Posted on 07/30/2004 8:17:31 AM PDT by Hillary's Lovely Legs
I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.
Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?
Thank you
Making it up?
It's exaclty the argument made in Gitlow; that rights may be restricted if such restrictions prevent overthrow of the government.
What do you call the AWB, if not a federal law which outlaws certain firearms because they are too powerful for the citizenry? What of the outlawing of machine-guns because they are too powerful for the citizenry despite the fact that every infantry soldier is issued one?
You suggest I am making something up? I have to store five rifles three thousand miles from my home because Gray Davis and Don Perata think that ugly, black rifles are too dangerous for people to own, even without the bayonet lug.
You point out that we have no state-sanctioned organized militias. You are aware of the outlawing of some rifles because they have bayonet lugs.
You are aware that the Ninth Circuit agrees with the Kalifornia Supreme Court that Kalifornians have no right to keep and bear arms.
And you suggest that I am making up the idea that overthrow of the government will be disallowed by the government through civilian disarmament.
What part of "has been totally infringed" do you not understand?
Of course.
Whether that right was protected is a different matter altogether.
Yes. It means all of those things and anything else which would threaten our freedoms, individually or collectively.
Just as I said, the security of a free state includes freedom from a tyrannical government. If the First Amendment had contained a clause explicitly protecting subversive speech, then it would have been more difficult for the Supreme Court to erroneously restrict freedom of speech as they did in Gitlow.
Now, was that right, which pre-dated the Constitution, just a right of militias to be armed, or was it a right of people to keep and bear arms so that they might form militias when necessary?
And how did this right cease to exist at the time of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Silveira vs. Lockyer?
The US Supreme Court was able to find a right to kill unborn babies, but the Ninth Circuit can't find a right which robertpaulsen recognizes pre-dates the Constitution.
In light of this pre-existing right, how should the Ninth have decided Silveira?
To me they're asking the defendant, "What does your possession of this weapon have to do with the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia?" (ie., First, what does this weapon have to do with a militia? Second, what does your possession of it have to do with a militia?)
Even if the defendants could have demonstrated that shotguns (<18") were militia type weapons, I think they still would have had to prove that their possession had something to do with a militia.
Ask yourself, why was the USSC so interested in the weapons relationship to a militia? If the second amendment protects an individual RKBA, who cares about a militia? Why ask if this weapon is a militia-type weapon?
If the second amendment were incorporated, they'd have a case. But as in US v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), and others, the courts have ruled that:
"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."
The local government is bound by the state constitution in matters of gun legislation. Since the California state constitution is mute on the RKBA, legislators are free to pass any gun law they feel they can get away with without being voted out of office.
Because they wished to find a way to infringe a persons right to keep and bear arms. They have succeeded.
But, from US vs Miller we find:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
The Supreme Court in Miller was not silent regarding militia membership. It was not an issue in the remand and was not likely to be an issue at trial.
Also, note that they do not refer to organized state militias. They are referring to the unorganized militia, as were the Founders who wrote the Constitution.
Whoa! Nope. Who says?
"Please tell me how you became convinced that the militia mentioned in the Second Amendment is a state militia?"
The words, "being necessary to the security of a free State" was really my first clue.
Now, you want to make a case that it's something else, be my guest. Do you have a cite or a link that I can read? I'd be interested.
Unless, of course, you're just jerking my chain like that other poster admitted.
One minute you are saying that the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from disarming state militias which no longer exist.
Now you suggest that the Second Amendment could be "incorporated" and that then the Nordykes would have a case. The Nordykes are not a state militia. They are people.
The Declaration of Independence established the Constitution?
The state militias were not under federal control. An act of Congress could call forth the Militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel invasions" only.
Other than that, they were under state control.
State militias were under state control. An act of Congress could call forth the state militia "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions".
During that time, and for those specific reasons, state militias would be under "federal control".
After that time, they revert back to the state.
I don't care about the National Guard. The second amendment does not apply to the National Guard.
And robertpaulsen said: The words, "being necessary to the security of a free State" was really my first clue.
Now that's funny.
When the President of the United States attends a "state dinner", to which state does that refer?
Colin Powell is the "Secretary of State". To which "state" does that refer.
Have you ever heard of a "stateless" person? Is it possible for a stateless person to be a citizen of the US?
From the US Constitution:
"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...--;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects. "
Which of the original thirteen states do you suppose were those "foreign States"?
This overly specific interpretation of a single word at the expense of the concept under consideration is often the mechanism used by activist courts to invent distinctions which were never intended.
I was pointing out that an armed, unorganized militia is always available, even when the organized militia is unavailable, for whatever reason. How is that a "lame answer"? Was this response intended to my posting #397?
I pointed out previously how crucial it was to the Korean shopkeepers during the L.A. riots to have their rifles to protect their own security. The state-supplied forces didn't even have ammo for their guns initially. I guess they intended to establish order with their trusty, but now sometimes outlawed, bayonets.
Ask mvpel -- it's his hypothetical. He said "the right to keep and bear arms". From that, I assumed an individual right.
I responded, yes, you have that right. That right, however, may not be protected by the state in which you live. It's not protected in Mr. Silveira's state. If he moved to another state, his right would be protected.
"In light of this pre-existing right, how should the Ninth have decided Silveira?"
In light of the fact that the constitution of the state of California does not protect Mr. Silveira's right to keep and bear an assault-style weapon made illegal by California law, the 9th ruled correctly.
Please tell me exactly what was wrong with that ruling -- I know you're familiar with the case.
It is an act of tyranny to infringe the rights of man.
Kalifornia does include a right to self-defense. Without the right to keep and bear arms, it is meaningless. The Ninth could easily have asked Kalifornia to clarify how a right to self defense can be protected if people are made defenseless.
There is not right to self-defense enumerated or protected by the US Constitution. But you and I have that right.
If the second amendment were incorporated, that would mean that the USSC had determined that the RKBA was a fundamental principle of liberty and that it should apply to the states. I don't know how the USSC will define the RKBA.
If they define it as an individual right, the Nordykes win. If they define it as a right associated with a militia, we all lose.
The sheer attitude exhibited on this thread shocks me. It's no wonder the gun-grabbers are making progress.
Like twisting this:
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.
into this?
Yes, the right of individuals to bear arms collectively in a militia for the security of a free state are protected from federal infringement.
The second amendment neither protects nor confers the right of individuals to bear arms outside of a militia. That protection comes from the state constitution. (from robertpaulsen's post #269 on this thread)
Now, does that represent the Courts' view, robertpaulsen's view, or both?
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.