Posted on 07/09/2004 9:19:09 AM PDT by tpaine
This website very insidiously interprets our US Constitution in a pro-Statist manner. IE --- "The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
"The Bill of Rights was understood, at its ratification, to be a bar on the actions of the federal government.
Many people today find this to be an incredible fact. The fact is, prior to incorporation, discussed below, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states."
It is incredible, seeing the author completely ignores the supremacy clause in Art. VI.
He then goes on to bash our 2nd Amendment:
"Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment - an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.
Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.
Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.
This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill - this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation.
Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.
Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.
Reasonable restrictions do seem to be the way to go, acknowledging the Amendment, but molding it, as we've done with much of the Constitution.
After all, we have freedom of speech in the United States, but you are not truly free to say whatever you wish. You cannot incite violence without consequence; you cannot libel someone without consequence; you cannot shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater without consequence. Why cannot gun ownership by similarly regulated without violating the Constitution?
The trick is finding that balance between freedom and reasonable regulation. Gun ownership is indeed a right - but it is also a grand responsibility. With responsibility comes the interests of society to ensure that guns are used safely and are used by those with proper training and licensing. If we can agree on this simple premise, it should not be too difficult to work out the details and find a proper compromise."
Know you enemy.. This man Steve Mount is NOT a friend of our Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at usconstitution.net ...
Kind of, "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 by the state."
The state shall not interfere with the people forming a state militia to protect the security of a free state? I think the Founding Fathers would have found that interpretation ludicrous.
Wow, what a simple bung-hole this author Steve Mount is! Hunting? Collecting? Self-defense? What does any of that have to do with overthrowing a (possible future) tyrannical government by force?
As long as those federal laws do not violate the second amnendment, Virginia is bound by them.
I say Federal anti-gun laws do infringe on the RKBA mentioned in the second amendment. But, since the Gun Control Act of 1968, we have yet to see a challenge. I wonder why not.
"How are ANY of our Rights "infringed" or reduced by having our central government say that no State, nor the FedGov itself, may remove full use of that Right save by due process from criminal proceedings in court?"
Very simple. Congress can ban handguns -- the USSC then decides that "arms" as defined in the second amendment excludes handguns. Since the second amendment applies now to Virginia, turn 'em in.
But... but... Congress wouldn't do that robertpaulsen! Yeah, and Congress wouldn't ban "assault-style" weapons either.
Kind of, "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 by the state."
The state shall not interfere with the people forming a state militia to protect the security of a free state? I think the Founding Fathers would have found that interpretation ludicrous.
How about addressing the question, which was:
Would a USSC interpretation that says the Second Amendment applies to the States make the RKBA of Virginians less secure?
"Congress can ban handguns"
Bumpkin.
What about Congress' power under the Commerce Clause? Are you trying to undermine that power?
Or do you agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Second Amendment means the RKBA is a personal right?
Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the "right to keep and bear arms" is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right.
--Justice Clarence Thomas, Printz vs US
Isn't it amazing what passes itself off as 'Constitutional' these days?
I see. Since the Second Amendment is not incorporated, the 1994 AW ban does not apply to Virginia.
However, if the Second Amendment were incorporated, the 1994 AW ban would apply to Virginia.
Your grasp of the Constitution continues to amaze.
If the statute passed under that power violates the U.S. Constitution, you bet I am.
"Or do you agree with Justice Clarence Thomas that the Second Amendment means the RKBA is a personal right?"
First, I'd like to see the "growing body of scholarly commentary". Second, that "growing body of scholarly commentary" means diddley squat when it comes to legislation and court rulings (ie., the things that do matter).
And third, I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.
I sure do wish that Justice Thomas would spend less time convincing the public of his position and more time convincing his fellow Justices TO ACCEPT A RKBA CASE.
310 -bumpkinrob-
______________________________________
Maybe you'll get lucky and Congress will ban handguns, rob.
Your grasp of Congressional law continues to amaze.
robertpaulsen wrote:
What does the 1994 AWB have to do with the second amendment?
______________________________________
It's an infringement.
Ask robertpaulsen, who wrote this in post #303:
I say Federal anti-gun laws do infringe on the RKBA mentioned in the second amendment.
They're the ones who will be influencing Virginia's RKBA, not me.
I think so, too. But we don't count.
What did the court say about the 1994 AWB with respect to the second amendment? (Answer: Nothing)
Don't argue. Do what he says.
Don't argue. Do what he says.
Sorry rob, but he is trying to convince me that:
"Literally hundreds of thousands of people today are being killed, brutalized, sold as slaves, imprisoned, tortured, threatened, discriminated against and arrested solely because they are Christians."
And if they do so, does that make them Right? Or in Error? What is the publics last recourse against governmental tyranny?
You are hopeless...
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.