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

I would also like to know, exactly, what you all mean by "automatic weapons"?

I'll tell you what I mean by "arm" in the context of our discussion. It means any device designed to pound or pierce flesh or other material, in a discriminatory fashion, for the purpose of defense against attack, or of upholding the laws - and its necessary accoutrements.

Those who want to exclude a particular type of arm bear the burden of defining what they mean - and making sure that definition can't be "tweaked" by politicians to their hearts' content. Otherwise, you're giving them a loophole big enough to drive a tank through.

Because the "Soccer Mom's" and the comfortably rich are not going to permit you to have these toys without some very stringent requirements.

Yes, that is the problem, isn't it? So what do we do about it? Do we give in, and set ourselves up for continual retreat, or do we speak the truth to them?

Because the "Soccer Mom's".... Yes, that is the problem, isn't it? So what do we do about it? Do we give in, and set ourselves up for continual retreat, or do we speak the truth to them?

The best answer I can give you is contained in Lord Chesterfield's letter to his son, No.CXXIX, London, Sept. 5th. 1748. I am not being facetious, I am serious. Find it if you can. Learn from it (if you can).

I would also like to know, exactly, what you all mean by "automatic weapons"?

I'll tell you what I mean by "arm" in the context of our discussion.

You purposely evaded the question. I didn't ask for your definition of "arm", I asked for your defamation of "automatic weapon". Your veracity is suspect. Which is why Soccer Mom's don't want to trust you with a gun.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the State wherein they reside.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of its citizens;

Under that specific wording, no, no Article IV complications to speak of. But without any mention at all of U.S. citizenship, that wording risks creating the impression that there can be such a thing as a citizen of a state, but not a citizen of the United States.

Was there such a thing as a US citizen before the 14th Amendment?

If yes, then how could any government remove that designation with the above two sections and Equal Protection in force?

If no, then what is the point of adding US citizenship since all citizens of all States had the P/I of any State and equal protection?

I thank the 14th amendment for nothing. And neither should you or any "state's rights" conservative.

States do not have rights, they have powers.

Because of the 14th, we have President Bush, not President Gore.

Because of the 14th, States cannot discriminate against any citizen.

Because of a USSC that ignored the 14th, diversity trumps equal protection. (U of M Law School)

But you want to blame the Commerce Clause. Why? The Commerce Clause does nothing -- it just sits there. No judge can use it, no activist can touch it.

The only group that uses the Commerce Clause are congressional representatives that we elect every two years. If they are writing abusive laws, throw the SOBs out into the street! Are you voting today? You damn well better be, blaming the Commerce Clause for everything including the common cold.

If the expansive CC interpretation is not responsible for most of the Federal bureaucracies that write rules and regulations governing industry, education and health care, then what is?

As far as Wickard v Filburn goes, Filburn deserved to be bitch-slapped for trying to scam the system. He signed on to a program that increased the price he received by restricting production, then turned around and produced more than he agreed to.

How does regulation of interstate commerce translate into the power to set price controls and dictate to a citizen in Kansas how much wheat he may grow?

The Feds should not have had the power to set prices in the first place. A Congress and President that honored their Oaths would never have initiated New Deal programs. A USSC that honored its Oath would have struck them down.

As it is, the Algore school of constitutional law is in full effect.

[Do we give in, and set ourselves up for continual retreat, or do we speak the truth to them?]

The best answer I can give you is contained in Lord Chesterfield's letter to his son

Alright, alright, alright, I'll rephrase the question. Do we give in, and set ourselves up for continual retreat, or do we speak the truth to them flatteringly? Those really are the only two choices.

You purposely evaded the question. I didn't ask for your definition of "arm", I asked for your defamation of "automatic weapon".

I explained to you why I declined to answer. It's because I'm not the one trying to make a distinction between them and other types of arms. For what it's worth, I assume an automatic weapon is a firearm which fires in rapid succession as you hold the trigger down. But that still leaves us with the points I raised in my post.

Was there such a thing as a US citizen before the 14th Amendment?

As far as I know, it was merely assumed that citizens of states were citizens of the United States, but never a hard-and-fast requirement. And as a result of Dred Scott vs Sanford it was still an unsettled question whether blacks could be considered citizens at all. It's reasonable to think that the framers of the 14th amendment wanted to settle that question on all counts.

To be perfectly honest, I don't know the exact reason why they worded the amendment the way they did. It's probably the same reason why they used similar terminology in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which, as you may know, served as the impetus for the 14th amendment (as many members of Congress who supported it nonetheless had misgivings as to its constitutionality). This is its operative provision:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

Breaks down quite nicely, actually. "The same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property...as is enjoyed by white citizens" (privileges); "to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property" (equal protection - the only difference is that the 14th amdt. extends it to all persons, rather than just citizens); and "subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other" (immunities).

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 four days now 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.

So does the Constitution confer upon the states the power to take your life after your right of "due process", as is stated in the 5th. Amendment, has been satisfied. As Paulson tried to explain to all you Perry Mason's, there is a huge legal difference between a "Right" and a "Power" in the Constitution.

Paulsen is the most confused of all of you. -- I have no idea what your point is about the death penalty, or where you imagine paulsen explained anything.

RKBA'rs keep stumbling over these differences to their detriment. We have not kept check on state power, esp. CA.

Exacty my point, one which you three disagree. You agree that CA can prohibit socalled 'assault' weapons.

I would also like to know, exactly, what you all mean by "automatic weapons"? If you mean "fully automatic" and not "semi-automatic",

The term is defined at thousands of gun control sites. Look it up.

you may as well all be happy with paint ball guns. Because the "Soccer Mom's" and the comfortably rich are not going to permit you to have these toys without some very stringent requirements. Enlistment, as an example. If RKBA'rs cannot understand reality, the 2nd. Amendment, as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, will only be found in Fantasy Land.

Yep, and clowns like you three will have lead the way to gun prohibition.

Why do you want states to have the power to prohibit arms?

"If the expansive CC interpretation is not responsible for most of the Federal bureaucracies that write rules and regulations governing industry, education and health care, then what is?"

Whoa! If you're going to blame the CC for all the laws that have been written, then I guess pretty soon you'll be blaming the Second Amendment for all the gun deaths?

What do you say we put the blame where it belongs?

"How does regulation of interstate commerce translate into the power to set price controls and dictate to a citizen in Kansas how much wheat he may grow?"

Price controls are allowed under the interstate commerce clause, provided they serve a national interest. You may disagree with the concept of price controls, but they are constitutional.

Upon passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Filburn was bound by it.

"You agree that CA can prohibit socalled 'assault' weapons."

No, I said that California can ban all firearms.

According to the California state constitution, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Section 25. "The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof .....". A right to fish, but nowhere in the State Constitution does it say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Look it up.

Now, if California did indeed attempt to ban all guns, the citizens can turn to the California constitution, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1. "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Perhaps a California court could construe the underlined portions as a right to bear arms. Maybe, who knows?

But there's nothing in the California constitution which designates a RKBA, and there's no protection under the 2nd amendment -- that's been already decided in two court cases.

"Why do you want states to have the power to prohibit arms?"

It's not a question of "want". It's what the framers intended. Furthermore, I don't think that the federal government should decide the definition of "arms". That decision should be left up to each state.

"You agree that CA can prohibit socalled 'assault' weapons."

No, I said that California can ban all firearms.

All the more reason to doubt your sanity.

According to the California state constitution, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Section 25. "The people shall have the right to fish upon and from the public lands of the State and in the waters thereof .....". A right to fish, but nowhere in the State Constitution does it say that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Look it up.

Bizarre. The framers of CA's constitution simply forgot to put in a RKBA's clause, - as it was redundant.. Everyone in those days simply accepted it as an inalienable right as per the 2nd.

Now, if California did indeed attempt to ban all guns, the citizens can turn to the California constitution, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1. "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." Perhaps a California court could construe the underlined portions as a right to bear arms. Maybe, who knows?

Obviously, the CA supreme court, and CA's moral majority, has 'ruled' otherwise. Our only redress now is the USSC court, or civil disobedience.

But there's nothing in the California constitution which designates a RKBA, and there's no protection under the 2nd amendment -- that's been already decided in two court cases.

Nope, nothing needs to be 'decided'. The 2nd is clear, and it is being violated.

Why do you want states to have the power to prohibit arms?

It's not a question of "want".

Of course it is. You, and millons like you, want our governments to prohibit arms. They are doing so, as you command..

It's what the framers intended.

There you go again with your denial of historical reality.. Poor fella.

Furthermore, I don't think that the federal government should decide the definition of "arms". That decision should be left up to each state.

Yep. -- Against all rationality, you want states to have the power to prohibit arms.. You just admitted it again.

If the expansive CC interpretation is not responsible for most of the Federal bureaucracies that write rules and regulations governing industry, education and health care, then what is?"

Whoa! If you're going to blame the CC for all the laws that have been written, then I guess pretty soon you'll be blaming the Second Amendment for all the gun deaths.

You're seeing things that aren't there, again. I wrote that the expansive interpretation of the Commerce clause is responsible for most of the Federal bureaucracies that write rules and regulations governing industry, education, and health care.

Do you disagree that the expansive view of the CC is responsible for these bureaucratic rules and regulations?

then I guess pretty pretty soon you'll be blaming the Second Amendment for all gun deaths.

Once again, you're seeing things. If the Second Amendment were honored, it is my belief that we would have a whole lot fewer gun deaths and lower violent crime in general.

What do you say we put the blame where it belongs?

Where's that?

Price controls are allowed under the interstate commerce clause, provided they serve a national interest. You may disagree with the concept of price controls, but they are constitutional.

Please quote the section of the Constitution that you believe authorizes the Federal government to set price controls.

Upon passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Filburn was bound by it.

If by "bound" you mean the government would enforce it, then of course he was bound by it. Just like those who want a gun to protect their families are bound by anti-Second Amendment laws prohibiting gun ownership. They can be prosecuted and jailed. It's Algore constitutionalism in action.

"Do you disagree that the expansive view of the CC is responsible for these bureaucratic rules and regulations?"

Of course I disagree. Congress is responsible (in answer to your question of where do we put the blame) for writing the laws in the first place. The people you vote for every two years are the ones responsible.

The "expansive interpretation" of the Commerce clause just makes the odds of it getting past the USSC greater. It's still not a slam-dunk.

"Please quote the section of the Constitution that you believe authorizes the Federal government to set price controls."

From the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, (5.)To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures.

The value of money depends upon the general level of prices, and, in that context, the Constitution gives the federal government the right to impose price controls in conjunction with control of the money supply.

Why do you want states to have the power to prohibit arms?

You're wrong. I believe that there should be federal constraint on the states "power's" to prohibit any arms and to include common firearms and "persons" under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The term is defined at thousands of gun control sites. Look it up.

I take that answer to mean that you do, in fact, want unfettered access to fully automatic weapons. It's never going to happen. As a matter of fact, I think you're strange if you want such "rights" that are not subject to some qualifications.

. You agree that CA can prohibit so called 'assault' weapons.

California not only can, it does prohibit "AW's". That it goes too far I will agree. That it doesn't let people like you have machine guns, is probably a good thing.

-- I have no idea what your point is about the death penalty, or where you imagine Paulson explained anything.

So I've noticed. It's been a futile attempt to help you comprehend the difference between "Powers" and "Rights" contained in the BOR. It's a good thing you'll never argue a 2A appeal before SCOTUS, we'd loose by virtue of counsel's ignorance.

....governments have the power to violate our 2nd amendment..[rights]..by 'regulating' [read prohibiting] certain types of weapons.

You are using the term "regulate", as it is used in the wording of the 2A, in the wrong context.

You three have spent the better part of four days now trying to prove that....

.....and you have squandered the same amount of time arguing that you deserve the un-fettered ability to obtain and posses any weapon that you may desire, from a Daisy BB Gun up to, and including nuclear warheads.

"You'll shoot your eye out with that thing, kid".

Bizarre. The framers of CA's constitution simply forgot to put in a RKBA's clause, - as it was redundant.. Everyone in those days simply accepted it as an inalienable right as per the 2nd.

Simply forgot? No! It was, and still is a deliberate omission. When the first Calif Constitution was written, slavery was still in existence, but not in CA. Blacks were free. Also, "Californio's" [read California born Mexicans] were a large portion of the CA population. All through the history of the California the 2nd. Amendment has been excluded so the whites in power in the state could keep the minorities disarmed. It worked. It's still working. Those of us that believe the 2A should restrain state power are still discriminated against as were blacks and browns. Do you like the feeling? I didn't think so.

BTW, California's CCW laws were written in the 30's (?) by the NRA.

You three have spent the better part of five days now 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.

Why do you want states to have the power to prohibit arms?

How weird, -- when you say again just below that a state can prohibit machine guns.

The term is defined at thousands of gun control sites. Look it up.

I take that answer to mean that you do, in fact, want unfettered access to fully automatic weapons.

We had 'fettered' access from 1933 to 1968. Since then we've had varied anmounts of unconstitutional prohibitions, depending on the state. Its time to enforce our RKBA's - including owning full auto weapons.

It's never going to happen. As a matter of fact, I think you're strange if you want such "rights" that are not subject to some qualifications.

On this site, -- you are the strange one, bucko..
. You agree that CA can prohibit so called 'assault' weapons.

California not only can, it does prohibit "AW's". That it goes too far I will agree. That it doesn't let people like you have machine guns, is probably a good thing.

'People like me'? You wouldn't/couldn't say that to my face 'bucko'.. --- So don't say it here. Take such BS to the backroom if you insist on a pissing match..

Why do you want governments to have the power to violate our 2nd amendment by 'regulating' [read prohibiting] certain types of weapons?

You are using the term "regulate", as it is used in the wording of the 2A, in the wrong context.

The word 'regulate' is not in the 2nd amendment, bucko.

You three have spent the better part of four days now trying to prove that....

Hype.. Storage & posssession of hazardous materials & weapons can be reasonably regulated, as part of the police powers of a state. -- 'Reasonably' is the key concept.. -- Tell us bucko, why should citizens be prohibited from owning automatic weapons?

"Careful bucko.. You'll shoot your mouth off once to often".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.