Sure they have.
"The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. 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."
-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
"But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the (second - rp) amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
"In his motion for a rehearing, however, defendant claimed that the law of the State of Texas forbidding the carrying of weapons, and authorizing the arrest without warrant of any person violating such law, under which certain questions arose upon the trial of the case, was in conflict with the Second and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, one of which provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and the other of which protects the people against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of any of these provisions, and even if he were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the Federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)
The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:
"Since we hold that the second amendment does not apply to the states, we need not consider the scope of its guarantee of the right to bear arms. There (U.S. v. Miller) the Court held that the right to keep and bear arms extends only to those arms which are necessary to maintain a well regulated militia. Because the second amendment is not applicable to Morton Grove and possession of handguns by individuals is not part of the right to keep and bear arms, Ordinance No. 81-11 does not violate the second amendment."
-- Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982)
The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999); Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002).
Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding. I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.
pillbox_girl:
"These laws ARE unconstitutional! They just haven't been challenged in the Supreme Court yet."
[Paulsen denies our RKBA's;]
" --- Sure they have. ---"
[And cites some tired old statist ops]
-- U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
-- PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
-- Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894)
The lower federal courts have ruled similarly:
The Ninth Circuit has ruled FIVE TIMES that the second amendment does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government.
Unless you have more than capital letters and bold type to support your views, don't bother responding.
I have no intention of playing "Yes it does! No it doesn't!" games with you. Put up or shut up.
["FIVE TIMES" bold type followed by his circular argument "No it isn't!" game. Tish tish.]
______________________________________
WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
The Second Amendment secures a right of individuals generally, not a right of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militias.
MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
--- Conclusion ---
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views.
The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion.
Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
The Ninth Circuit is NOT the Supreme Court. I would have thought someone as willing to quote legal history as you are would know that.
Moreover, the Ninth Circuit is the most corrupt, liberal, socialist, anti-american court in the country. It is also the circuit that holds the dubious honor of having that largest number of its decisions overturned by the actual Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit has more of its decisions overturned than all the other circuit courts COMBINED.
In other words, the Ninth Circuit Court is WRONG!
Explain this to me:
The the First Amendment right of the people to peaceably assemble is an individual right.
The Fourth Amendment right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects is an individual right.
The Ninth Amendment's open affirmation of non mentioned rights retained by the people refers to individual rights.
BUT ...
For some reason the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is NOT an individual right? Instead, it's some vague concept like a "collective right"?
And for that matter, just what is a "collective right"? How can a group have rights that the individuals in that group do not? Isn't that just mob rule?
The plain answer is that all rights are individual rights. If they're not, then they're not rights, they're powers or privileges for a few.
And another thing. You say these rights are not "granted by the Constitution". Well, that statement is correct, but not in the way you think it is. Look at Amendment Nine. It clearly says the rights therein are "enumerated". It does not say "granted". That means the Bill of Rights merely lists and numbers them, it does not grant them. They exists a priori. By the Ninth Amendment, the people posses these rights whether or not they are mentioned in the Constitution. The Constitution, and the government, does not have the authority to grant these rights, just as it does not have the authority to take them away.
Your arguments, really, just make me ill. You take it as an assumption that the courts are the highest authority in this country. You believe that the Constitution only means what a court says it means. Well, you're wrong. The Constitution means what the Constitution says. It's really not a difficult document to read and understand. But throughout history, judges and politicians have done their damnedest to twist, pollute, and dilute the test of the Constitution and Bill of Rights in support of their own political agendas. Sure, they've have the political power to do so, but they never had the authority or the right.
And yet you seem to think that that is just fine. You are so proud of your ability to quote legal minutia that you never analyze the legal decisions themselves. You readily agree to the recent unconstitutional Kelo decision just because the Supreme Court claimed it was constitutional. You blindly accept the legal decisions of a Supreme Court with justices like Ginsberg who firmly believe that so called "international law" supersedes our own Constitution. By your logic, she managed to sleaze her way onto the court, so she must be right. You accept the Ninth Circuit's obviously incorrect claim that the Second Amendment, unlike all the other Amendments, only refers to an "collective" right. You twist your head around so much that you even accept something as self contradictory as the concept of a "collective right". You've wrapped yourself up in the cloak of weasel words and false justifications provided t your by corrupt legal decisions. And you're proud of it.
You, sir, are an enabler of corruption, and an ally of tyrants.