Right to Keep and Bear Arms - California Initiative Constitutional Amendment Petition Drive Underway

The Unofficial California RKBA Petition Web Site ^ | 03/10/2004 | William Tell

[elbucko]

So we're to understand that, according to you, the meaning of the various provisions of the Constitution is contingent on public opinion?

No, not according to me. Look, I am not at all happy about the present state of affairs vis-a-vis the 2nd Amendment. It was not of my making. I have never voted Democrat or gun control Republican. I've been a life member of the NRA before I was drafted and a member of GOA, almost since its inception. But I can read the witting on the wall. The wall of the restroom at the shooting range. If that is the level of maturity that RKBA'rs bring to the 2nd Amendment defense, we've lost already. Nothing left but to turn in your guns.

[Dante3]

BUMP

[tpaine]

elbucko wrote:

I am hopeless.

______________________________________


All three of you are hopelessly confused on our RKBA's.

It exists in our constitution, it means what it says, and it is being violated by all levels of our various governments.

You three have spent the better part of three days trying to prove that governments have the power to violate our 2nd amendment by 'regulating' [read prohibiting] certain types of weapons.

You have disgraced yourselves with your own words.
-- Now you seem to be backpedaling a bit. -- It ain't gonna work. You've all said too much.. Live with that fact.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: All Dred Scott said was that Article IV "privileges and immunities" granted by a state to white citizens were also to be granted to black citizens.

Maybe I better read it again. I thought that it specifically stated that Scott would be able to carry arms wherever he went if the court permitted him his freedom.

[inquest]

I thought that it specifically stated that Scott would be able to carry arms wherever he went if the court permitted him his freedom.

That's probably because it was a given that every state in the union allowed firearms ownership for (white) citizens.

[William Tell]

inquest said: The next clause - "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" - was clearly designed to put force into the previous one, so as to make it understood that these new citizens weren't just "citizens" in some abstract sense, but actually had to be treated like citizens.

The previous sentence made a distinction between two things. This clause only refers to one of the two things; that is, "citizens of the United States". This clause does not address citizens "of the State wherein they reside."

The very reason for this distinction is that the federal government had no control over the "privileges and immunities" of the citizens of a particular state. As has been pointed out, each state had its own constitution.

The federal government was establishing, through the amendment process of the US Constitution, its power to prohibit states from denying the privileges and immunities of "citizens of the United States". This amendment presupposes the power to recognize what those immunities are and to prevent their being denied. None of this was left to any state to define or oppose.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: Now, where did you get that the RKBA is an unalienable right?

The Second Amendment clearly refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It does not state the the Constitution creates such a right, but that the pre-existing right shall not be infringed.

Thus, given that our Founders believed that it pre-existed the Constitution, where could it have come from? If it was not among the "unalienable" rights endowed by our Creator, then where did they get the idea for prohibiting expressly the infringement of that right?

The confiscations of arms in an around Boston prior to 1776 clearly indicated that there was no recognized right to bear arms in law at the time that would protect the citizens of Boston.

If you think that the right reference in the Second Amendment is not unalienable, then where do you think it came from? Who created it and who has the authority to destroy it?

[William Tell]

inquest said: "That's probably because it was a given that every state in the union allowed firearms ownership for (white) citizens."

"Allowed"? You mean it was a "privilege" and not an "immunity"?

[tpaine]

William Tell:
I thought that it specifically stated that Scott would be able to carry arms wherever he went if the court permitted him his freedom.

_______________________________________


That's probably because it was a given that every state in the union allowed firearms ownership for (white) citizens.
345 -inq-


______________________________________


His slip is showing. States "allow" firearms ownership in inquests world.,
-- But watch him try to weasel word his way out of his own admission..

[inquest]

The previous sentence made a distinction between two things. This clause only refers to one of the two things; that is, "citizens of the United States". This clause does not address citizens "of the State wherein they reside."

I addressed that point at the top of the post you were responding to.

[inquest]

"Allowed"? You mean it was a "privilege" and not an "immunity"?

One or the other. I'm not sure what the point of your question is.

[tpaine]

"I'm not sure".. Weasel words.

[Ken H]

For reference, here is Article IV--

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

And Section 1. of the 14th Amendment--

--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If a State determines the privileges and immunities, then both the designation of US citizenship and the P/I Clause are superfluous and cause unnecessary confusion. Try this and see if it still fits your interpretation--

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State wherein they reside. Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[inquest]

Try this and see if it still fits your interpretation-- [14th amendment minus the P&I clause]

Without the P&I clause, the first sentence is just an empty declaration. It's meaningless to say that such-and-such people are "citizens" without providing some operational requirement that gives that declaration some effect. There's nothing superfluous about the clause.

[inquest]

Wow, you're really getting desperate.

[inquest]

I only looked quickly, and missed your other point about the designation of U.S. citizenship in the first sentence. That's also necessary, for the reason I mentioned at the top of the post you responded to.

[tpaine]

That was my point about your weasel words..

-- Keep trying to insist that states 'allow' firearms ownership. -- Now that's pathetic, - and desperate.

[Ken H]

And you can thank the 14th amendment for imposing a one-size-fits-all federal definition of laws.

You can thank the !4th Amendment for President Bush's election. The case was decided on basis of the Equal Protection Clause.

And the 17th amendment further eroded state autonomy.

Yes it did, but do you know what has really eroded State autonomy?

That's right, the Commerce Clause. As you are fully aware, most of the Federal bureaucracies depend on the New Deal expansion of the Commerce Clause. I believe the USSC put its seal of approval on this with their Wickard vs Filburn substantial effect ruling.

Federal control of education, health care, and an alphabet soup of Federal agencies all depend on the expansive use of the Commerce Clause.

Do you know of anyone who has been defending Wickard vs Filburn and the substantial effects doctrine?

[inquest]

You have no point. You're just flailing around, trying to make potshots, and failing rather miserably.

[tpaine]

How weird you are my boyo.
When I call you out on a valid constitutional point, you never answer, cause you can't.

You only reply about what you imagine to be 'potshots'.
So be it.. In that case, we will discuss your mental problems .