Yes, tpaine, I'm part of the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids.
BTW, are you still a member of the BHC?
Posted on 03/10/2004 10:29:00 PM PST by William Tell
Of course they do, as long as it isn't against their state constitution. My state, Illinois, requires the purchase of a FOID (Firearm Owner's ID) card to purchase a gun or ammunition. I'd call that an infringement. In Chicago, guns are banned. You cannot own or possess a gun within city limits. I'd certainly call that an infringement. The same is true in NY, LA, Washington, D.C. -- how do they all get away with it without a constitutional challenge? Because it's constitutional.
"the Second Amendment does not even mention Congress."
Neither does the 6th. But it took the case of Gideon v. Wainwright, under the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment, to apply the guarantee of "the assistance of counsel for his defense" to the states.
Also, under the 6th amendment, mandatory jury trials only applied to the federal government.
"State courts, moreover, were not bound by the Sixth Amendment jury guarantee until 1968, when the Court incorporated it through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145)."
So, the fact that the second amendment does not mention Congress carries no weight.
"Individual states cannot "grant" the right to keep and bear arms because it is unalienable."
No, the RKBA is not an unalienable right. The right to life is. The right to defend oneself is. But not the right to own a full auto, 5.56mm, M249 Squad Automatic Weapon.
OK. You're just confirming what I said.
Just because the 2nd amendment is a clear as a bell to you as to what it says, doesn't mean it's clear to all. It doesn't mean that there won't be disagreement. It doesn't mean it's a slam dunk for our side.
Just because you think so. Sheesh!
Go to the "unofficial" web site in the main article. Download the proper county PDF file and the instruction sheet. Use a letter-quality printer. Follow the instructions. Make sure the one page petition looks just like the one-page PDF as viewed on your computer.
You can witness your own signature and those of other registered voters. Get your family and friends to sign and collect signatures. It's healthy and fun!
I've been looking for a good excuse to post another article such as this one next week to keep the effort visible. A good topic for such an article would be a brief discussion of the "Initiative, Referendum, and Recall" mechanisms built into the California Constitution.
I sense that some Freepers, even those from California, are unfamiliar with these mechanisms.
The "Recall" process allows for the recall of elected officials (probably only state level). An interested party has to follow a procedure, probably through the Secretary of State, to initiate a recall petition drive. There is a mandatory form for petitions and a number of signers required for a successful petition drive. The number of signers required is based, I believe, on the number of voters for governor at the most recent general election.
There is a limited amount of time after approval of the petition drive which is allowed to collect the signatures.
Signatures must be gathered by county, because only registered voters in California may sign. The promoters, if they believe that they have the necessary number of signatures, will, at the end of the drive, submit each county's signatures to that county's Registrar of Voters.
The Registrar of Voters in each county checks the validity of some or possibly all of the submitted signatures and reports the total to the Secretary of State. If the required number of signatures has been gathered statewide, then a Recall Election is scheduled. All voters in California can vote to recall or not recall. Whichever side gets the most votes, dictates whether the official loses his office.
This is exactly what just happened to Gray Davis.
"Referendum" is a similar process, but is a mechanism aimed at repealing an already passed law.
"Initiative", which is the process being used for this RKBA Constitutional Amendment, allows for the creation of new legislation or amendment of the Constitution.
Anyone in the state may obtain and circulate petitions. Only registered voters in one particular county may sign any one petition form. The person circulating that petition may be from a different county. The "Circulator" signs at the bottom to having witnessed the signatures.
All the petitions get mailed to a central location run by the original promoters of the drive. They make the decision to submit petitions to the individual counties. That same promoter is the safest source of petition forms.
Some of the above was material from a required High School Civics class (Class of '66). Some from recent current events. My apologies for any errors.
The second amendment said that the federal government could not infringe the RKBA. It said nothing about the states, nor did the second amendment apply to the states.
You seem to be of the "harsh language and a stern look" school of self-defense.
Okay. Let's sneak up on this one a little at a time.
Do I have a right to pick up a rock and defend myself from an attacker with it?
I understand that. However, the US Constitution also rewarded some states with representation based upon the number of slaves owned in the state.
Our Founders understood that this was a compromise with the devil. Without it, there would have been no Union and history would have been quite different. I see no sign of a similar compromise with respect to the keeping and bearing of arms.
Most anti-gun laws date from after the Civil War and were aimed at blacks. Such laws were seldom enforced against free white people.
Perhaps you can tell us what the oldest anti-gun law in the US is?
If you are in fear of your life, cannot escape, and can justify using a weapon (the rock) against the attacker, then yes. But it is not an unalienable right.
You have an unalienable right to defend yourself. That right cannot be taken away by anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is yours. You own it. It was given to you by God.
You also have a right to pick up a weapon to defend yourself. The law defines those weapons and the conditions under which they may be used and extends a right to use them.
To me, this is the M16A2 5.56mm rifle or the M4/M4A1 5.56mm carbine, not the M249 SAW.
Yes, tpaine, I'm part of the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids.
BTW, are you still a member of the BHC?
Probably because you also see no sign that this issue threatens the Union.
If you are in fear of your life, cannot escape, and can justify using a weapon (the rock) against the attacker, then yes. But it is not an unalienable right.
Carrying and/or picking up a rock is an inalienable right, enumerated in our constitutions 2nd amendment.
In using it to defend yourself, you could be charged with a crime. Again, our BOR's governs how that alleged crime must be adjudicated.
You have an unalienable right to defend yourself. That right cannot be taken away by anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is yours. You own it. It was given to you by God. You also have a right to pick up a weapon to defend yourself. The law defines those weapons and the conditions under which they may be used and extends a right to use them.
Not so. The 2nd amendment forbids government infringements on the right to own, carry or pick up a weapon.
How you then use them is subject to criminal law.
And, -- the criminal law itself is subject to our BOR's.
Paulsen, this is elementary logic on the rule of constitutional law. Why do you need it explained to you?
You think it should be the SAW, go for it. But I don't think you can justify it, and you'll come off looking like a whack-o. Who the gun-grabbers love.
"How come I can't own one?"
Ask your state representative. He writes the rules.
No argument here
I have been waiting for this to be given the go ahead. This is from the same group that tried the Veto the Governor (Davis) effort, that didn't pass. Hope that there is enough time to gather the signatures for this one. Hope that the number of signatures gathered is WAAY over the top, makes it easier to qualify for the November ballot that way.
I have a few petititions printed out waiting for people to sign. I haven't been to the range lately so its been blank so far. I hope to change this.
The Constitution mentions "Letters of Marque and Reprisal", but it nowhere suggests that the a person must ask permission to own a war ship in order to carry out such actions. That a private person might own the equivalent of a warship was a given at the time of our nation's founding.
Any limitation of the Second Amendment to what a lightly armed infantry man might carry is a recent invention. Even as recently as 1934 the Congress merely attempted to tax machine guns because it recognized that it had no authority to outlaw them.
Tell me why you think the Second Amendment says "keep and bear arms" instead of "keep and bear the battle equipment of a soldier"? Tell me how your interpretation squares with the Miller decision which suggested that general usefulness to a Militia was the criteria to use, and not whether a common soldier carried the weapon?
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.