Posted on 03/10/2004 10:29:00 PM PST by William Tell
The federal situation show exactly what is wrong with it.
First, our Founders anticipated that a future government would attempt to claim that the right to keep and bear arms was intended only to protect hunting and sport-shooting. They included the language: "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..".
Those of us who have taken Latin recognize the grammar of such a statement. It is equivalent to saying: "Because, among other possible reasons, a well-regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State ...".
Demoncrats and their tyrannical judges have taken what was supposed to be a clause protecting the right and mis-interpreted it to be a clause which narrows the "right" to be something about a state's right to arm its Militia. It's nonsense, but the majority of Americans today are intellectually incapable of challenging such nonsense.
Only in the most recent generation has the US Supreme Court dared to engage in such behavior, with their "penumbras" creating the right to kill the unborn. There is nothing sensible that the Supreme Court could say about the Second Amendment that would not support the individual right to keep and bear virtually any kind of military weapon.
The anti-gun result of the Supreme Court's silence has been several generations of people who are too irresponsible to keep and bear the arms which were perfectly legal to own for our nation's first century and a half. Today, a sizeable proportion of our population is too irresponsible to be trusted with a pocket knife.
Until we are once again free, we cannot become once again responsible.
I see from your personal page that you live in Ventura County. If you check my "unofficial" web site, you will see that the Ventura County petition file has the name county name mis-spelled in one place.
Would you please go to the Golden State 2nd Amendment Council page and contact them to get clarification on what you should do? I pointed out the problem earlier but the problem remains.
I did just call the Ventura County Registrar of Voters. I didn't try to document the call, but the gentleman there suggested that just having the county name mispelled would not jeopardize having the petition accepted. He said the important part was what the voters filled in and that the petition itself had been approved by the state, as these have.
It would appear that you can download the PDF file, get copies printed, and begin collecting signatures.
I understand what you are saying.
However, until the US Supreme Court strikes this amendment down as being unConstitutional under the US Constitution, I think it would be far preferable to the situation we now have in California. The courts have ruled that we have NO right to keep and bear arms whatever. Outright prohibition and statewide confiscation is now within the grasp of the California legislature. If passed by the legislature, nothing short of a US Supreme Court ruling (or armed conflict) can stop it.
I got twelve signatures the day after hearing about the pettion drive. That was because my wife's family came to our place for dinner.
I spent most of the last couple of days getting my "unofficial" web site up. I was convinced that informing 2000 California Freepers was a more effective use of my time than carrying petition packets to local gun stores and shooting ranges.
I encourage you to do the same kind of tactical thinking. Your signature and the signatures of your family and friends are important. But it may be that there are steps you might take to inform others or to supply them with materials that might have greater impact on success.
Freepers tend to be quite computer literate. There are many pro-gun people who are not online. If you can find the right sort of person in your county, it may be that your role is to simply supply guidance.
Another observation is that conservatives by their very nature tend to be extremely independent and self-reliant. This works against forming quick alliances with strangers to accomplish a common goal. Organizing gun-owners is like the proverbial problem of "herding cats".
Well, yes and no.
"Incorporation" is an invention of the courts, it is not a construction in the Constitution or any Amendment to it.
Recently I read an interesting article addressing this issue.
Dred Scott was an escaped slave who was returned to his owner in another state because the court found that it could not grant him the "privileges and immunities" of a free man. The decision explicitly described that Scott would be entitled to carry arms wherever he went if the court found that he was a free man. The term "privileges and immunities" is what is described in the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Second Amendment is certainly among the "privileges and immunities" of free men. This right will be "incorporated" when the Supreme Court says so, but it is a fact even without such a statement.
And their communities, at all its levels.
A Korean shopkeeper protecting his store during the L.A. riots should not have to stand guard alone 24 hours a day. He should be able to help and accept help from a deserving neighbor.
Perhaps. But it gets more difficult for the anti-gunners as the legal net gets tighter.
The US Supreme Court found itself telling the Florida Supreme court, during the Al Gore marathon recount episode, to take another look at the state's laws because the Florida court was failing to enforce them.
Without even having to address the Second Amendment, the US Supreme Court might find itself having to tell the California Supreme Court that it must look again at a decision because it is blatantly inconsistent with the California Constitution.
The Missouri Supreme Court was just called upon to rule on their new concealed carry law. Anti-gunners attempted to suggest that the phrase ""but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons ..." in the state Constitution was a prohibition against the legislature passing a law permitting the wearing of concealed arms.
The Supreme Court disagreed and there is now concealed carry in Missouri (except for four counties who justifiably claim that the state must pay the expense of the program). The Missouri Supreme Court might be anti-gun (I don't know) but they risk the embarassment of having the US Supreme Court slap their hands if they cannot understand the clear language of their own Constitution.
Stay Safe !
Well then, how about we support the passage? Can't hurt, right?
I don't agree.
The Supreme Court failed to review "Silveira vs Lockyer". The California Supreme Court had ruled, correctly, that the California Constitution contains no explicit right to keep and bear arms. (There is a provision for self-defense, but I think you have to use strong language and a stern look.) The California Supreme Court incorrectly failed to apply the protections of the Second Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment to citizens of California.
Passing this proposition would increase the chances of a US Supreme Court ruling because it removes one of the "correct" interpretations which has permitted the California Supreme Court to continue infringing my rights.
The US Supreme Court never rules directly on any issue, with just a few exceptions involving conflicts between government agencies and the like. Almost every case has to come from lower courts. The clearer the issues, the fewer the issues, and the greater the conflict between lower courts, the more likely a case is to be heard.
The relatively rapid spread of "shall-issue" concealed carry laws is a very good thing. Utah is taking steps to force the University of Utah to drop its prohibition against concealed arms. As time goes on, the contrast between the "blue zone" and the "red zone" is increasing. If the Supreme Court does not do its duty and release the tension that is growing, then we will become two nations and Civil War or dissolution of the Union will be the result.
Well, yes and no. It is a fact and it will be incorporated when the USSC says so. Just as free speech, freedom of religion, etc., were facts and were incorporated when the USSC said so.
I don't know if the second will be incorporated under the "privileges and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause. I don't really care.
Now the "no" part. We still haven't defined the second amendment that is to be incorporated. Will it be incorporated as an individual right not to be infringed by the state, or a collective right not to be infringed by the state? That issue has not been settled.
From the Fourteenth Amendment:
Section 1. 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;
What robertpaulsen apparently wrote is literally true; the Fourteenth amendment does not mention the Bill of Rights.
In light of the wording in Dred Scott, I would ask him to tell us what "immunities" are covered if not the immunity from infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.
Our Founders went to a lot of trouble to carefully word the Bill of Rights so that people would not consider them a full enumeration and so that people would understand that the rights preceded the Constitution.
Individual states cannot "grant" the right to keep and bear arms because it is unalienable. We are born with the right to use arms in defense and we will die with the right to use arms in defense.
The Second Amendment provides us with an immunity from infringement. Unlike the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law...", the Second Amendment does not even mention Congress. Individual states have no more power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms than they have to conduct search and seizure without a warrant.
We seem to be getting more polarized everyday...Glad I'm in the camp that has the guns and knows how to use them..
Good Luck CA..this would be the 1st time a communist regime will have recognized a subjects right to bear arms.
I don't see "collective right" mentioned in the Constitution. It is an invention of lower courts used to ignore the clear language and meaning of the Constitution.
I would be curious to know of a "collective right" and how it can be defended by anyone.
The Constitution, I believe, mandates that all states must have a republican form of government. Is this a "collective right". Does this mean that an individual would not have standing to sue if a state attempted to eliminate representation? Or is this requirement a limitation of government power? And one which I, as an individual, can insist upon as a consequence of due process under the US Constitution?
The second amendment says "...shall not be infringed". It does not say "shall not be infringed by Congress", nor does it say "Congress shall pass no law...".
The clear and concise wording leaves no room for any infringement by anyone less then the One who granted these rights--being Someone who serves much, much higher then the "u.s. supreme court".
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.