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!

[LexBaird]

So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution for over 125 years, but the passage of yet another amendment, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line?

What Amendment, passed 125 years later, are you referring to? I cannot recall any Amendments to the Constitution in 1904.

That the states collectively slapped their foreheads and said, "Oh.. So THAT'S what you meant!"

If everyone had a clear and uniform understanding of what was Constitutional and what was not, we wouldn't need the USSC to review laws, would we. We wouldn't even be having this discussion.

States have been wrong in the past, so appeal to their authority as an argument is a logical fallacy.

[Ken H]

I should point out further that privileges and immunities are not the same as rights.

I've always thought that P&I included, but were not limited to rights. Is it your contention that rights are not included among P&I?

I know that we had quite a lengthy discussion about this a while back, but I forget some of the details.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Wouldn't you think that an assault weapon is exactly the weapon that the founding fathers wanted to protect from federal infringement? I mean, we can perhaps save the "individual or collective right" argument for another day, but at least let's define the type of arms that "shall not be infringed". But, no second amendment challenge. Why not?

How was Silveira vs Lockyer not such a challenge? The Supreme Court had an opportunity to enshrine in its historical collection of error a decision supporting the "collective right" nonsense. They didn't trouble themselves no doubt because Miller vs US contradicts Silveira completely.

Timothy Bean of Texas was deprived of his right to keep and bear arms forever for having been found "guilty" of keeping shotgun cartridges in Mexico. The Supreme Court offered him no relief from federal laws which infringe his right to keep and bear arms.

The Fifth Circuit has explicitly declared the RKBA an individual right but found it "reasonable" that Emerson be denied his right to keep and bear arms without him having committed any violent act. The Supreme Court failed to use this opportunity to protect a right to keep and bear arms.

I haven't the case to cite, but I have been told that there is at least one Federal District which has ruled the federal prohibitions against machine gun manufacture to be invalid. Only fear of murder by jack-booted government thugs prevents such manufacture.

Please describe the opportunities to challenge judicial error regarding the Second Amendment which have been ignored by the pro-gun community. Which cases should have been pursued which were not? Which key decisions could have occurred and how would they have allieviated the infringements which we now suffer?

[robertpaulsen]

"So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution for over 125 years, but the passage of yet another amendment, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line?"

How about, "So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but the passage of yet another amendment, the 14th, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line? Even though it wasn't until 1925 that the first ammendment was ruled applicable to the states by the USSC, 134 years after BOR ratification.

[robertpaulsen]

"Please describe the opportunities to challenge judicial error regarding the Second Amendment which have been ignored by the pro-gun community."

No, you provide me with the second amendment cases that the pro-gun community have ushered before the USSC. There are none. That's my point.

[LexBaird]

How about, "So you're saying that the states were violating the BOR amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but the passage of yet another amendment, the 14th, similar to the ones the states were ignoring, brought the states in line?

How about this: I'm saying that the States are still violating the BoR, despite the clear language of both the Constitution and the 14th A.

They do so by obfusticating the law and lawyering our Rights away, knowing that it is well beyond the means of the average citizen to oppose them.

The fact that they get away with this blatent abuse is no justification. Neither was it in 1925, nor before. That the USSC took so long to get around to their duty is not a support for your argument.

Rights are not created by USSC rulings. The Rights found in the 1st A. existed before 1925. We were just deprived, unconstitutionally, of these Rights by some States prior to that.

[tacticalogic]

It doesn't matter if We the People could ever defeat our own Federal Army.

We don't have to defeat them all. Only the ones that will ignore the Constitution.

[robertpaulsen]

That's your opinion, fine.

I'm just saying that there are two explanations; 1) That the BOR applied to all levels of government, but the states violated all of them for 135 years, and some of them to this very day or 2) That the BOR never did apply to the states, there was no violation, and it wasn't until the passage of the 14th amendment that the USSC even considered applying some of the BOR to the states.

Aside from the arguments made, the second explanation just seems to make more sense, that's all.

[Dead Corpse]

Yep. It'll still be a tough row to hoe, but the survival of the US as a Nation of Sovereign Individuals is worth it.

[tpaine]

Your quote applies to Congress, as the 16th made clear.

Let's see: Article I, Section 9, passed 1788. Amendment 16, passed 1913. You failed.
356 inquest

Idiotic point.
It's meaning was clear before the 16th made it even more clear, even to you.
You lose.

If it's clear that that prohibition on power didn't apply to the states,

Some prohibitions apply to States. The one you quoted from Art I, Sec. 9 didn't.

then it's equally clear that your claim that "Neither the Feds nor the States were to have powers prohibited by the Constitution" is dead wrong.

It's only 'dead wrong' in the flawed logic of your imagination.

[LexBaird]

Aside from the arguments made, the second explanation just seems to make more sense, that's all.

You aren't a lawyer, by chance, are you? Either we have Rights, or we don't. If we do, then the States do not now, nor have they ever had the power to violate them.

If the Rights contained in the BoR were considered to be basic to all Americans, how could any individual State have the power to violate them? They cannot and remain a just government. Arguments at to when the USSC gained the ability to strike down these unconstitutional State laws become legalistic sophistry, since the States never had the moral authority from the People to make them in the first place.

[Dead Corpse]

Not all States. See post 414. Although thanks to Bush et al, they have since changed their mind and gone back to stepping all over the Constitution again...

[LexBaird]

Should be "...as to when..."

[mrsmith]

"From saying that the BoR extends to the States to belief in the above statement is quite a leap of logic. I contend no such thing."

It is exactly what you are saying: that the federal government has the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states because it is not prohibted from doing so.
Most ironically you refer to Article 6!
Though one reason for the BOR was fear of a broad interpretation of the powers in Article 6- you blithely interpret Article 6 to find power granted to the the federal government by the BOR!
The Anti-federalists are rolling in their graves!

I assume you are aware that the Supreme Court agreed with the Founders that the BOR granted no enforcement powers to the federal government. That was no surprise however since a Founder who had participated in the constitutional debates was on the court at the time .

A great effect of Free Republic is to encourage people to research our Constitution and history. After school is over many of us never crack another book on our Founding.
Grab a text on our history from the library. It's free!
Better yet get a biography of one of our Founders. They have lots of fascinating personal information mixed in with the sometimes dull historical facts.

[Dead Corpse]

See post 410.

[robertpaulsen]

"Time to admit you've lost the argument against incorporation."

So, the recent USSC ruling on "Terry Stops", whereby you must provide your name, is no big deal, right?

I mean, if your state wishes to keep their laws prohibiting their officials from asking for your name, then the USSC ruling has no effect. That's basically what you're saying, right?

[LexBaird]

"From saying that the BoR extends to the States to belief in the above statement is quite a leap of logic. I contend no such thing."

It is exactly what you are saying: that the federal government has the power to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states because it is not prohibted from doing so.

Does not follow. You contend that I argue that anything not prohibited is allowed. What I truly argue is that which is prohibited, is prohibited; what is allowed is allowed. Some things to the Feds, some to the States, some to both. Then, under the 10th A., undelegated powers not prohibited are reserved to the States or, ultimately, the people.

Violation of the Constitution is prohibited to both, via their officer's sworn oath. The BoR are part of the Constitution, therefore violation of same is prohibited to the States.

I have not argued power to enforce either way, your assumption that I have notwithstanding.

[mrsmith]

An excellent example of why the Bill of Rights was passed to limit the Article 6 powers of the federal government- not to increase them as idiots claim.

The whole essay includes several reasons for limiting federal power and protecting the Bills of Rights of the states. Several calls for defending the people and the states from the new government are in the Antifederalist papers .

[mrsmith]

Well, if we both agree that the federal government had no power to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states then we certainly agree!

Morally one can certainly argue that the BOR should have been followed by all the states- one of the reasons for the BOR was to protect those rights we had reserved from our state governments.

But the Founders did not give the federal government any such authority.

At the time pople trusted their states, the state governments had led them in the war for independence, they refered to their states as their "country" in iterature of the time.

The new federal government was greeted with almost as much suspicion as the United Nations would be today! Much demand was made to restrict it's powers to matters between the states and to foreign affairs.

[Dead Corpse]

Several calls for defending the people and the states from the new government are in the Antifederalist papers .

And as Brutus points out, that ONLY a BoR that applies to both the State and the Federal truly protects the Citizen from encroachment.

Not a very good try at twisting a VERY clear quote as Brutus mentions BOTH the Federal and the State in the excerpt above.

What does it matter if a tyrant be 1000 miles away, or ten miles away? A tyrant is a tyrant. They knew this. You SHOULD know this unless you are an aspiring sycophant OF a tyrant. Then you have all kinds of excuses for wanting to circumvent the Rights of the sovereign individual like you are so assiduously trying to do...