Hasta La Vista, 2nd Amendment

Liberty Belles ^ | Jennifer Freeman

[TERMINATTOR]

 

California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has recently reaffirmed his support for a federal ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles, commonly known as the "Assault Weapons" ban. There was much debate and speculation about Schwarzenegger's position on firearms ownership prior to his being elected. This was primarily due to the fact that there was very little public information about his position on firearms. Californians were left to speculate about whether The Terminator -- the alpha male who made millions of dollars making movies in which characters used semi-automatic rifles to defend themselves -- was actually Mr. Shriver, a gun-banning politican towing the line for the Kennedy clan. Perhaps the Governor is neither an alpha male, nor a Kennedy wanna-be. Perhaps he is more like Bill Clinton in that he makes his decision based on what the polls say. And we know all how inaccurate polls can be. Whatever the reason, a person cannot support a ban on the private ownership of semi-automatic rifles and claim to uphold the Constitution. A politician cannot take away the rights of the citizens to protect themselves and claim to be for the people. A man cannot be judged as having good character, if his decisions are based on personal gain. And Californians cannot complain about gun rights while voting for a candidate who is questionable, at best, on the issue of firearm rights.

Say, "Hasta la vista" to the Second Amendment, baby!

[Condor51]

The Federal AWB is utterly irrelevant to California - that state has already passed a far more sweeping ban on so-called "assault weapons"......"

Amen to that.

I'm a licensed Collector of Military Firearms (BATF C&R class 03) and on every C&R web-site there is the BIG Warning about which guns CANNOT be shipped to, sold in the Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

Their laws are Draconian to say the least. Not to mention STOO-PID.

(when is the last time somebody committed a crime with a bayonet or grenade launcher???)

[P-Marlowe]

The clear intent of the 14th amendment was to make the BOR, including the 2nd Amendment, applicable to the states...

Gee I didn't read that there. Is the statement that the 14th amendment was intended to apply all of the bill of rights to the states hidden somewhere in the pneumbras of the 14th amendment or is it stated in black and white.

I can't seem to find that statement in my 14th amendment. Maybe I have an expired edition.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I don't know how we will be able to stave off the Left and the Far Right Whackos and the libertarians and the press.

---

You could always stand firm for the Constitutional principles and liberties our founders considered important.

[Dead Corpse]

Too much to ask of them. Principles? Liberty? Why bother when all you need to garner votes is to out liberal the Left?

[Dead Corpse]

Silly n00b.

So you approve of handouts for illegals? Approve of more unConstitutional restrictions on our Second Amendment Rights? Approve of more welfare spending and entitlement programs? Amnesty for illegal aliens? Voting rights for ILLEGAL aliens? Paid Colleg tuition for ILLEGAL aliens? Going back on campaign promises like Arnold on licenses for law breaking invaders from Mexico?

If it wasn't for the tax cuts and the War on Terror, President Bush really couldn't even lay claim to the title of "conservative".

You better get your head wired right. And quick. Or your "heros" will slant so far left that they may as well switch party affiliation to Democrat.

[LexBaird]

If you want to be a constitutional purist, the second amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket.

B.S. The 2nd amendment clearly applies to the States under the 14th and other clauses, such as IV, 2. And the Constitution anticipates the issuance of Letters of Marque: essentially the licencing of fully armed private warships.

[LexBaird]

Gee I didn't read that there. Is the statement that the 14th amendment was intended to apply all of the bill of rights to the states hidden somewhere in the pneumbras of the 14th amendment or is it stated in black and white.

From the 14th A.: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

Seems pretty black and white to me.

[tacticalogic]

If you want to be a constitutional purist, the second amendment does not apply to the states, and the right to bear arms contemplated only that every free man was entitled to own a single shot musket.

The words of the Constitution are there to convey ideas and concepts, as they were understood by the Founders at the time the document was written. While there is a case to be made that the 2A doesn't apply to the States, I find the assertion that the Founders would not consider a modern firearm to fall within their understanding of the concept of "arms" ludicrous.

[P-Marlowe]

Seems pretty black and white to me.

The "priviledges and immunities" clause can easily be intepreted as protecting the rights of the citizens of the individual states to pass whatever laws they feel are necessary to bring peace and order to their communities, including, but not limited to, establishing a city or state church, abridging the right of press or speech or engaging in othewise unreasonable searches and siezures,. or outlawing the private ownership of projectile emitting weapons.

The 14th amendment just isn't all that clear. So if you wish to protect your second amendment right to bear arms, I would suggest that you must be ready to use those arms to defend it. If you aren't willing to use your arms to defend your right to bear arms, then the right isn't worth the paper it is printed on, is it?

[P-Marlowe]

I find the assertion that the Founders would not consider a modern firearm to fall within their understanding of the concept of "arms" ludicrous.

They didn't have car bombs in 1791 either. Should I assume then that I have a constitutional right to drive a car loaded with C-4? Do I have a constitutional right to own a howitzer or a Sherman tank and haul it around the city?

[tacticalogic]

They didn't have car bombs in 1791 either. Should I assume then that I have a constitutional right to drive a car loaded with C-4? Do I have a constitutional right to own a howitzer or a Sherman tank and haul it around the city?

The Founders understood the concept of "arms", and I think pretty much everyone here understands the concept of "strawman".

[Fiddlstix]

BTTT

[P-Marlowe]

The Founders understood the concept of "arms"

The founders understood the term "arms" to mean having the right to posess weapons sufficient to meet or exceed the power of a tyrannical entity that has come to rob them of their property or rights.

In this case the feds are armed with tanks and missles. If the feds become an arm of tyrrany, then to meet that challenge the second amendment, if it has any of its original meaning left, would have to assume that the right to bear "arm" means the right to bear whatever armaments are necessary to meet and defeat a tyrannical incursion upon our inalienable rights to life and property.

My State government has the necessary armaments to do that job in its National Guard. We have tanks, we have jets, we have anti-aircraft batteries, etc.

Now does the right to bear arms that gives the states the right to their own military and military equipment then go all the way down to the individual citizen? Or is the right to individually own arms subject to reasonable limitations as defined by the State or if the Commerce Clause is invoked, by the Federal Government?

[tacticalogic]

Or is the right to individually own arms subject to reasonable limitations as defined by the State or if the Commerce Clause is invoked, by the Federal Government?

The first, maybe. As for the second, I'll defer to the writings of James Madison (the author of the clause) on the subject:

1. The meaning of the Phrase "to regulate trade" must be sought in the general use of it, in other words in the objects to which the power was generally understood to be applicable, when the Phrase was inserted in the Constn.

2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.

James Madison to Joseph C. Cabell

18 Sept. 1828

[xsrdx]

NRA Anti-AWB Website

SUNSET THE AW BAN

[P-Marlowe]

So if reasonable limitations are acceptable for the states to impose on their citizens in regard to the type of arm that individual citizens are allowed to own, then what is the beef with Arnold? Is he not proposing "reasonable" limitations on the types of arms that individual citizens can personally own and if we disagree with those regulations are we not free to petition the state for a change in those restrictions?

If it is conceeded that I am not allowed to own a 50mm cannon, then the second amendment does not protect my right to own any specific type of arm. The second amendment is therefore satisfied as long as, after all reasonable restrictions have been placed upon me, I am reasonably left with a weapon sufficient to protect my life, my family and my property.

I would think that a shotgun would be more than sufficient for such a task and that there is therefore no constitutional necessity or right for me to own a handgun or a semi-automatic projectile emitting armament of any kind.

[LexBaird]

The "priviledges and immunities" clause can easily be intepreted as protecting the rights of the citizens of the individual states to pass whatever laws they feel are necessary to bring peace and order to their communities...

No it can't. It can be tortured into that interpretation by activist courts, judges and the ACLU, but that is a sophistry, not an easy interpretation.

Individual rights of citizens are for individuals. They are not massed together to loan out to the several states, in order to abridge the "privileges and immunities" of other citizens.

The whole point of the 14th A. was to insure that the recently freed slaves were not abridged of thier rights as citizens by the States. The lawmakers of the time clearly understood the RKBA as one of these rights.

[tacticalogic]

If it is conceeded that I am not allowed to own a 50mm cannon, then the second amendment does not protect my right to own any specific type of arm. The second amendment is therefore satisfied as long as, after all reasonable restrictions have been placed upon me, I am reasonably left with a weapon sufficient to protect my life, my family and my property.

No, the Second Amendment is satisfied when you are left with a weapon sufficient to insure the security of a free state.

[P-Marlowe]

No, the Second Amendment is satisfied when you are left with a weapon sufficient to insure the security of a free state.

Then I should have a right to carry a very large car bomb. I should have the right to drive a tank. I should have the right to own a backyard anti-aircraft battery.