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
No, it was a horrible idea. First, if the Founding Fathers wanted a central Bill of Rights, they would have written it that way. Second, our first amendment is now a one-size-fits-all whatever-the-USSC-says-it-is amendment. Third, the first amendment specifically says, in plain English, Congress shall make no law ..., not "Congress and the states shall make no law ...". How would you like your second amendment twisted this way?
"Would incorporation of the Second Amendment be a bad idea?"
Equally horrible and for the same reasons. Repeal the 14th!
No, it was a horrible idea. First, if the Founding Fathers wanted a central Bill of Rights, they would have written it that way. Second, our first amendment is now a one-size-fits-all whatever-the-USSC-says-it-is amendment. Third, the first amendment specifically says, in plain English, Congress shall make no law ..., not "Congress and the states shall make no law ...". How would you like your second amendment twisted this way?
"Would incorporation of the Second Amendment be a bad idea?"
Equally horrible and for the same reasons. Repeal the 14th!
I'll do it.
robertpaulsen said in post 473: "So, the USSC remanded the case to determine if the weapon was of a type that could be used by a militia. A reasonable request [self-contradictory OPINION - see post 462]. "
robertpaulsen said in post 462:"The heart of the matter. You are correct, it shouldn't. [self-contradictory OPINION - see post 473] In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning."
It would absolutely make my day.
| "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story |
My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA, -- and I, and thousands of my fellow citizens, have no recourse.
We are being outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud.
You are backing the 'right' of CA to prohibit assault weapons paulsen. That is ~gross~ on your part. Your whining efforts to deny being a gun grabber are ludicrous. You support the State of CA's effort to ban 'evil' weapons.
No, I don't applaud.
Pitiful denial paulsen. -- Your every post here belies you.
But you firmly believe that your RKBA relief will come from the second amendment. That when we get the right case in front of the right USSC judges, manna will fall from heaven. I'm telling you that it's a pipe dream.
I have no such 'pipe dream' you clown. When the USSC is finally forced to face making a firm decision on our RKBA's, we the people will win regardless of their 'ruling'. A decision against our RKBA's would bring on ~real~ 'unintended consequences' and lead to a final resolution of the matter. You gungrabbing clowns would lose.
Your relief will come from an amendment to the California state constitution, protecting a citizen's RKBA. -- tpaine, rather than just sitting at your keyboard typing, "the second amendment applies to the states", you actually have to do something.
I've been doing it ~all~ most of my life paulsen.
-- I took an oath, [you haven't, obviously] to defend our constitution almost 50 years ago.
-- Been fighting gungrabbers since they started this BS back in '64, when I had a gunsmith/collectors license and worked the gunshows in CA.
All you have is a big mouth, -- one that can't refute the facts I've presented.
You made the same "treason" remark in regard to Oregon vs Ashcroft.
The CSA was passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President over 30 years ago. Every federal court ruling since then and prior to the Ninth's ruled the CSA constitutional. Every one. Even the dissenting judge in Raich v Ascroft said it was constitutional.
The 9th wasn't declaring the CSA unconstitutional in OvA; it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous. If that's treasonous, then the English language simply hasn't provided an adjective sufficient to describe Miller.
Now you've got me confused. I thought you believed the RKBA was an individual constitutional right for militia related weapons. You wrote:
I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.
But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".
Is the following not the limited individual rights model?
"Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service."
So in robetpaulsen's opinion, does the Second Amendment mean the States should be prohibited from infringing on the individual RKBA, if they are militia related weapons?
Not at all. The states are limited by their state constitution. Period.
The second amendment, whatever it means to me or you, is only binding on the federal government.
robertpaulsen said in post 473: "So, the USSC remanded the case to determine if the weapon was of a type that could be used by a militia (fact). A reasonable request (my opinion).
It is obvious to anyone with at least two neurons to rub together that the USSC tied the clauses together - something which you have yet to admit - and was requesting further proof. Given that they tied the two clauses together, requesting further information on the weapon from the lower court was reasonable.
robertpaulsen said in post 462:"The heart of the matter (my opinion). You are correct, it shouldn't (my opinion). In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning (fact).
In other cases that I have read, clauses of the type found in the second amendment are not limiting. In my opinion, therefore, neither should the clauses in the second amendment. That's why I believed that the RKBA was an individual right.
For some reason, the courts are treating the militia clause of the second amendment as limiting (ie., the individual RKBA is dependent on an association with a militia).
In Miller, why was the USSC interested in the weapons relationship to a militia? If the second amendment grants an individual RKBA, it shouldn't make a difference.
No they didn't. I didn't say they did. They declared it unconstitutional in Raich v Ashcroft, the case to which I was referring.
"it was simply stating that the act didn't have the same scope of applicability that Ashcroft said it had. You interpreted differently, so you called it treasonous."
"But because the wording of the regulations do not actually mention assisted suicide, the DEA issued a regulatory "interpretation" informing doctors that prescribing federally regulated substances to assist suicides would not be a "legitimate medical purpose" under federal law. (An administrative interpretation establishes official policy for enforcing government regulations when the words of a pertinent regulation are unspecific or vague about the matter being interpreted.)
The 9th had no excuse to "interpet" it differently. The "interpretation" is crystal clear. They chose to interpret, and implement, it differently.
This is flat-out state nullification of federal law, a treasonous act.
" before I can answer if the .50 cal BMG is a fine private citizen gun, I think that it's important to know it's practical usage"
Uhuh. There's no practical reason for owning a Corvette, either. But they can be fun.
Courts aren't supposed to interpret laws? Where are you getting this from? The whole reason for having independent courts is to provide an independent, impartial (not to mention stable) interpretation of the laws, not one dependent on political influences and subject to constant shifts from administration to administration, which is what happens when you allow the executive branch exclusive power to interpret laws.
I think you and I both know that the 9th was hardly unprecedented in overruling an administrative agency in how the laws are interpreted.
A 2-1 ruling by 9th Circuit judges is not my idea of independent, impartial, or stable.
The 9th circuit is free to challenge the existing federal law. But, until a final determination is made, the federal law should be obeyed. In this case, the 2-1 decision upholds a permanent injunction against Ashcroft issued by Oregon U.S. District Judge Robert Jones.
It didn't take a microscope to point out your self-contradictory opinions just eleven postings apart.
You seem to have supported every statist position on the right to keep and bear arms, but when pressed for justification you have suffered the same fate as all anti-gunners. You cannot make a coherent case for infringement of the right because the "theories" of gun control are themselves self-contradictory.
I won't trouble myself to point out your past postings claiming that the Second Amendment only protects the right of a state to arm a militia. It directly contradicts your statements claiming support of the "standard model".
Given your recent, though perhaps temporary, support for an individual right to keep and bear arms, then one might reasonably ask whether the protection afforded by the Second Amendment constitutes one of the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States", as suggested in Dred Scott.
If so, then one might reasonable wonder what the implications of the Fourteenth Amendment are which mandates, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ".
Take another shot while I clean the lenses of my "microscope".
Oh, I support an individual RKBA. Our discussions have been, however, on whether or not the second amendment protects that right. Remember?
You get confused easily, don't you?
"then one might reasonably ask whether the protection afforded by the Second Amendment constitutes one of the "privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States", as suggested in Dred Scott."
From Dred Scott:
8. A State, by its laws passed since the adoption of the Constitution, may put a foreigner or any other description of persons upon a footing with its own citizens, as to all the rights and privileges enjoyed by them within its dominion and by its laws. But that will not make him a citizen of the United States, nor entitle him to sue in its courts, nor to any of the privileges and immunities of a citizen in another State.
The P&I clause of Article IV, Section 2, did not apply to slaves.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"
What were those P&I of that category of citizen -- a citizen of the "United States"?
"Going back to the 'Jones' case, which was decided in 1993, we find the courts of today saying, "The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any ofthe Bill of Rights not protects all rights of individual citizens." Although fourteenth amendment citizens have no guaranteed access to the Bill of Rights, the amendment itself does state that they have certain "privileges and immunities." Here's what the supreme court has decided they are:"
"Privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, on the other hand, are only such as arise out of the nature and essential character of the national government, or are specifically granted or secured to all citizens or persons by the Constitution of the United States. Slaughter-House Cases, supra, p.79; Re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436, 448, 34 L.ed. 519, 524, 10 Sup. Ct.Rep. 930; Duncan v. Missouri, 152 U.S. 377, 382, 38 L.ed. 485, 487, 14 Sup.Ct.Rep. 570. Thus, among the rights and privileges of national citizenship recognized by this court are the right to pass freely from state to state (Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35, 18 L.ed. 75); the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances (United States v. Cruikshank, supra); the right to vote for national officers (Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 28 L.ed. 274, 4 Sup.Ct.Rep. 152; Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58, 45 L.ed. 84, 21 Sup.Ct. Rep. 17); the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshall (Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263, 36 L.ed. 429, 12 Sup.Ct. Rep. 617); and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws (Re Quark, 158 U.S. 532, 39 L.ed. 1080, 15 Sup.Ct.Rep. 959).
-- civil-liberties.com
Implications? None.
Not at all. The states are limited by their state constitution. Period.
Demented opinion paulsen.
The States of the Union are quite clearly limited by the US Constitution, -- most plainly in Art. VI's supremacy clause & oaths of office, and then followed by the 10ths words, saying that some powers are prohibited by it to the States. -- One such prohibited power, -- to infringe on our RKBA's.
The second amendment, whatever it means to me or you, is only binding on the federal government.
A daft opinion utterly unsupported by any fact.
Here's the "limited individual rights model": individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.
rp: The states are limited by their state constitution. Period.
Is that your interpretation or case law? I'm after your interpretation, not case law.
The second amendment, whatever it means to me or you, is only binding on the federal government.
What I'm trying to find out is what robertpaulsen's interpretation is, NOT case law.
How can you believe individuals have a constitutional right to keep and bear militia related weapons and also say States may infringe that right? It's not really a constitutional right if the States can override it, is it?
So I ask again, what is robertpaulsen's interpretation (NOT case law) of the Second Amendment?
Oh, I support an individual RKBA.
That is NOT true paulsen. You claim that in the State of CA, there is no such right. You claim that the State can prohibit keeping & bearing arms.
Say it isn't so. - Lie again.
Not quite.
Though with great difficulty, you seem to have admitted that the Miller court should NOT have disregarded the grammar of the Second Amendment and inferred a test which our Founders never intended.
Now I ask you recognize that the one of the immunities of citizens of the United States is an immunity from the infringement of their right to keep and bear arms. How can it not be that we have immunity from infringement by the federal government. You have supported this yourself.
The courts, like you, have gone to extreme lengths to deny the clear meaning of provisions of the Constitution. You need not do so. But somehow I think that you will.
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.