Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
But over turned the law as there was no provision for open carry. Can't have both as they violate RKBA. Bans on CC are fine as they fall under "regulation". But then you can't ban open carry.
Nor can the imposition of a number of fines to exercise a Right be considered legal either. Any number of poll taxes, preventing certain peoples from voting, have been shot down numerous times.
Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment would allow for a national concealed carry ban to be enacted by Congress?
Can you please verify your statement?
Produce Millers alleged claim that he was a member of a militia.
You believe a Congressional ban on concealed carry nationwide is permissable under the 2nd Amendment?
"... but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage."
>>>Instead of reading Federalist Paper #46, the U.S. Supreme Court would have read The National Defense Act of 1916 which "transformed the militia from individual state forces into a Reserve Component of the U.S. Army - and made the term "National Guard" mandatory."<<<
But, since the National Guard was created under the power to raise armies, rather than the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, then the National Guard is not a militia, but a reserve component of the U. S. Army. In fact, National Guard officers are U.S. Army officers.
The true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms. The fact that un-elected ideologes playing the role of 'justices' have usurped that power, or allowed it to be usurped, is another matter altogether. The same for the RKBA.
I don't recall the U.S. Supreme Court overturning those 9th Circuit decisions which stated that the second amendment protected a collective right.
Yes they do. And as an assembled group, they have rights they do not have as individuals. That makes it a collective right.
The Supreme Court doesn't address all lower court decisions.
And, once again, you are looking to support for your collectivist viewpoints to the most liberal federal circuit court. Which means, sir, that you are no conservative.
The Militia Act of 1792 actually read, "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States..."
Now is the "original intent" militia you advocate all white and beyond the reach of the 14th Amendment?
bttt
And disarmed those who refused to take an oath loyalty to the government of the state of Pennsylvania.
Roscoe advocates disarming 'disloyal' citizens. What's next comrade, the gulag?
But state Constitutions, which these fellows would seemingly hold void, often provide protections for an individual RKBA.
Pretty ironic.
Bingo. There is no more state Militia (as originally defined).
"The true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms."
The Militia, as defined by the Militia Act of 1792, is comprised of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively ... enrolled in the militia".
You are not a member unless you are enrolled. You must be white. You must be a male. Certainly the RKBA is extended to others outside of this group, yes?
No, I merely stated that, save the 5th Circuit in one case, every other federal court, especially the 9th Circuit, has ruled the second amendment protects a collective right in every case they heard.
"Which means, sir, that you are no conservative."
Since when does stating a fact make one not a conservative? You don't like what you're hearing, you can't refute it, so you start calling names?
"-- as an assembled group, they [people] have rights they do not have as individuals. That makes it a collective right. -"
Yet more proof that paulsen is a democratic collectivist.
Have you no shame robbie? How can you claim to be a conservative?
>>>Produce Millers alleged claim that he was a member of a militia.<<<
He didn't directly state it or emphasize it in the demurrer. The demurrer included a claim that the NFA violated the 2nd Amendment. The lower court agreed. The supreme court understood Miller's claim to include him being a member of the militia, and ruled accordingly.
>>>Are you saying that the 2nd Amendment would allow for a national concealed carry ban to be enacted by Congress?<<<
You misunderstand me. Any infringement of the RKBA is usurpation of power.
The only thing ironic around here is you two democrats claiming to uphold an individuals RKBA's.
>>>The Militia Act of 1792 actually read, "That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States..." Now is the "original intent" militia you advocate all white and beyond the reach of the 14th Amendment?<<<
Mojave, it appears all you want is a pissing contest. Let's stick to the basic facts, which is: the true militia, according to original intent, and never altered by amendment, is comprised of every male capable of bearing arms".
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.