I wonder how long they would last, if they had to work for
love...instead of money?
Posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills, California, having taught at Pierce College since 1975.
O’ Hear ye, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their December decision that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
The left hails this courts decisions as decisive and correct, while the right sees the court as a bulwark to destroy our republican form of government and forging the links in chains of usurpation. Remember, this is the same federal court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and has a record of more decisions reversed than any other court.
Have these judges made a sound judicial decision or legislated from the bench? The answer is in our history, our Constitution and especially the Second Amendment, a part of our "Bill of Rights." Some may think that surely this is a trick question that only a judge can divine. However, I assure you that the answer is meant for the common man in jury to resolve.
Judge for yourself, the Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Today’s media debates are often pro-gun and anti-gun advocacy matches. But reviewing the debates that confirmed our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" we recognize that today’s debates are similar to those of 1787: Should we have a federal government that is overreaching and infringes on individual liberties or should the individual be protected and the federal government be limited?
Indeed I hear your question: Where can I find the answer to a limited or infringing government which in turn can resolve the debate on gun control and determine if the 9th Circuit Court gets an A or an F in its decision?
The answer is in two books, "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers." One may obtain them at any quality bookstore, each at under $10.
Federalists sought a central federal government to assure a "more perfect union," with the benefits that an energetic government would bring in commerce and prestige much as England had. James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, saw with particular clarity, strong government could as much serve the people when controlled by them as it could injure them when it was hostile.
Anti-federalists were skeptical of any new constitution and saw the federalist hopes as lust by ambitious men for a "splendid empire" where, in the time-honored way, "the people would be burdened with taxes, conscriptions, and campaigns." They saw the enlarged powers of any central government as familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.
Be not mistaken in this, Federalists understood the need to limit the powers of government having endured the long struggle to end the "tyranny" of kings and wanted insurance that government would be faithful to the people, stable, and filled with wisdom in its enactments.
As the debate over the new Constitution progressed, anti-federalist objections crystallized into specific proposals for amendments that would assure the new federal governments limited powers. In some state conventions, these amendments were insisted upon prior to their ratifying the Constitution. Their proposals being similar in nature were later included as the first ten amendments, which we call "The Bill of Rights."
Consider Virginia, in 1788, offered 20 amendments for consideration.
Its 17th states: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Similarly Pennsylvania, upon ratification, issued 14 recommended amendments and the 7th reads: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state … and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
Considering our recorded history, one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand? A simpler question is: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.
© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star
And written by a college prof in L.A., no less.
I didn't notice the hyphen in his version.
IIRC, Boris had a reference about which of the one or three comma versions of the Second Amendment was correct. The version that the Congress voted on was different from the one that the state legislatures ratified. I think the clerk of the U. S. House of Representatives made a transcribing error.
Regardless, in all of the other amendments in the BOR they referred to individual rights. One of the first laws passed by Congress, the Militia Act in 1792, IIRC, expected every swinging Richard to bring his own piece if he had one.
The Ninth Circuit is the Volksgerichtshof of the Left.
In your opinion, are they correct? Remember we're talking about the Ninth Circuit Court, here.
THAT is truly amazing! He gets it right, just in time for Diane Feinstein to try to sneak her AWB through Congress!! RATS never give up!!
Q: When is infringing the right to keep and bear arms not "infringing the right to keep and bear arms"?
A: When it's "regulating commerce among the several states".
Do you have any idea how they managed that trick? If the states are subordinate to the Federal government, how can states infringe on supposedly, federally recognized individual rights, not that they don't try? Has SCOTUS ever made any definitive Second Amendment decision.
See Tenth Amendment.
Thanks for the links.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Look, you got to have a gun to form a militia, right? So that's why they wanted the people as individuals to have guns, so they could form a militia, as needed. These folks on the 9th court have too much "education". hey have become terminally stupid.
Someone help me here; I'm only just seeing this.
This isn't Broken Newz? They did it? They REALLY did this?
My god.
Thanks for the comments on Kozinzki.
It is a common misunderstanding that the BOR applies only to the feds. Properly read the 9th and 10th Amendments should have taken care of that at the founding. The 14th Amendment should remove all doubt. "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..." I admit that historically courts have been mixed on this subject (mainly because some jurists want to be able to oppress minorities IMHO).
Good point.
Don't forget fuzzy logic (the bad kind).
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.