It's been well known that states can pass statutes that modify the common law (not, however, eliminate the common law on that point). Any state that has one would have to repeal it legislatively. A lawsuit would be useless.
Posted on 03/30/2006 12:42:22 PM PST by Merchant Seaman
The Table of Contents can serve as an OUTLINE for the NRA to pursue real gun rights, the right of open carry nationwide. License to possess a handgun is, at beast, debatable. But there should not be a license for concealed carry or for open carry. PERIOD! Open carry nationwide in intrastate and interstate travel is absolutely the constitutional norm. This fact is not subject to debate nor interpretation. The problem arises with transient social and legal norms. My lawsuit addresses these points. I have pissed off the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, KeepAndBearArms.com and many other people who are intellectual bigotted against open carry.
American Common Defence Review http://amricancommondefencereview.blogspot.com/
Too lengthy to post here.
800 Pages?!
BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! Good luck, sparky.
It's been well known that states can pass statutes that modify the common law (not, however, eliminate the common law on that point). Any state that has one would have to repeal it legislatively. A lawsuit would be useless.
Suppose, for the sake of discussion, you are right. As I list in my Table of Contents I am alleging that the gun control laws of all 50 states combined violate the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution and violate the Fourteenth Amendment's dual citizenship clause.
Combine that with the right of any federal agency to enact "federal preemption" of State laws that violate constitutional rights, among other laws, creates the opportunity to restore national open carry.
Because you responded so quickly in an apparent "knee-jerk" reaction to the Subject Line I doubt you had time to read the entire Table of Contents that I linked to because you would have not posted your message as written. My Table of Contents addresses your comments.
My Table of Contents is NOT 800 pages. My actual document is 800 pages. Does this encourage you to go read my Table of Contents?
I am THE perfect test case!
How about this?
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, SECTION 1, SECOND SENTENCE READS:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
WHAT THAT SENTENCE REALLY MEANS:
"The United States shall make and enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law and deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but the States shall not."
I guess you missed the lawsuit the NRA tried to present to the U.S. Supreme Court so the citizens in Washington D.C. would be able to have unlocked firearms in their homes. The Court refused to hear the case because the plantiffs were not under indictment at the time.
Tell you what. Join the NRA or some other group and get arrested in Washington D.C. and maybe you can get your Rights restored as part of a landmark decision. Good luck.
Spot on, as usual. You can get yourself arrested but your case will have to wind it's way through both the state and federal appellate courts before you have even a ghost of a chance of the High Court. At any point in the process you can be derailed by a lower court including having your entire case either retried or dismissed in which case it's all for nothing. Even if you do manage to petition the court, they don't have to accept it and they don't have to give a reason for not taking the case for review. Oh and it's about a million plus dollars to fund the whole thing and you can bet that not many deep pockets will want to fund that cause. Even conservatives. Luck is not needed. A miracle is.....
WRONG ARENA!
THE CASE: Generally stated: Whether the U.S. Government can impose "common defence" duties without acknowledging, documenting, Second Amendment rights.
BRIEFLY: I reported aboard a U.S. Government ammunition vessel in Newport News, VA in 2002. As a new crewmember I was required to take a small arms recertification course as a prerequisite for my job as an able seaman aboard that ship. This was a federal requirement by Militiary Sealift Command. Federal law, 46 U.S.C. 7306(a)(3), opened the door for my to go to the U.S. Coast Guard with my application letter requesting that small arms training be endorsed on my Merchant Mariner's Document (ID card) as occupational training. I wanted the endorsement to read "National Open Carry Handgun." The Coast Guard denied the application on April 19, 2002. APRIL 19 IS PATRIOTS DAY. (Also confer with Abraham Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation.)
Boiled down to this essential argument: Can the U.S. Government compel civilian sailors to take up arms in defense of the U.S. Government vessels but deny their Second Amendment rights in civil society while ashore.
The U.S. Government wants its cake and eat it too. The U.S. Government cannot have it both ways.
The NRA, (i.e. Wayne LaPierre and Robert Dowlut, NRA attorney) are fools to ignore my case. My case is THE perfect case to win Second Amendment rights to open carry nation wide.
Check this out...
You're right. It's the wrong arena.
You're arguing if I understand this correctly, that the U.S. government isn't giving a National CCW law to their employees. If you win, then the government changes policy and arms it's employees.
Doesn't seem to give a lot to the lowly peasant population now, does it? No wonder the NRA doesn't seem interested.
I disagree with suing as a strategy to restore gun rights. The courts have their place, but it's not a strategy I would resort to as a first or even second choice.
The courts are places you go to when you can't win in the legislatures or the executive branches. By in large, we're winning in the legislatures and getting our gun rights back. Yes it's slow, and yes it can be frustrating, but the victories you win tend to stay won. Not to mention the fact that going to court is expensive, time consuming, and risky.
I know a lot of gun rights folks think that the Supreme Court would rule in our favor if they would only review a "good" gun rights case. I just don't agree with that premise. What recent court case can you point to in the last 10 years where the court has taken a dramatic stance in favor of personal liberty? I think it's at least as likely that the Supreme Court would adopt a position that is worse than the status quo.
And again, why would we want to find out? We happen to be winning.
Presuming of course you happen to think the concept of open carry everywhere is a good idea. I don't.
Citizens are safer and criminals are nervous when nobody knows who is armed. Open carry isn't a deterrence, it's an accelerant. It is possible to maintain condition yellow awareness 24/7/365. Open carry would require a level orange awareness and that would become impossible within a matter of perhaps an hour or two at the most. Afterward, you'd be so mentally exhausted you'd slip down to condition white and become almost instantly prey material. Open carry is appropriate in the woods camping, fishing or hunting. Open carry is appropriate anywhere on your own property. Concealed carry is appropriate everywhere. Now just to be clear: In favoring "open carry" you ARE speaking of unconcealed and in full public view rather than permitless as in Vermont and Alaska, right?
Ignore the catcalls from the Free Republic peanut gallery.
Best regards,
I think you are barking up the wrong tree. A man who carries in one state with no opposing statute can likewise carry in another state that does? Won't fly. It can be argued that the citizens of the latter state, through their representatives, have a full right to not allow open carry.
Do you want to dissolve the sovereignty of the states? Not a good idea, in my opinion.
Open and concealed carry are subject to the police powers of the state, so can be regulated. Sure, they're a right, but both can be regulated just like slaughter houses and other conditions that can threaten the health welfare and safety of the people in the state. Read the Slaughterhouse Cases in the USSC (83 US 36).
No violation of article 4, section 1. And, if you're talking state citizenship when you mention duel citizenship, there is only national citizenship. That's the 14th amendment.
There are national citizens and residents, not citizens, of a state. I have a federal judge on tape during the resolution of a case involving an allegation of state citizenship stating outright the the 14th replaced state citizenship.
If those points are the basis of your argument, I don't need to read your Contents. I don't think it can be done this way now. I don't aim to be mean, negative and hostile to the idea, just that it's a waste of time. But I'm no lawyer.
You're real worry is the tortured remains of article 1, section 8, clause 3.
I would enjoy reading the court rulings, and any briefs, but I can't find them. Do you have any links?
As far as your research--I am generally familiar with most of your arguments, but the only thing that will matter is what 5 SC justices think. You can have 800 pages of material on the 2A, and if Ginsberg writes an opinion on the topic, the 2A will be dead.
Oh Yeah! I was a jackass for posting that! Will you let me live it down? ;^)
The document is available in WordPerfect and PDF formats but is too large to email. However, with effort, the files can be chopped into smaller files and emailed separately over time.
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.