Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Fine. Give me a link to one source that says the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to protect this individual right.
You can't. All hat and no cattle. That's you. See ya later.
I recommend you start at the beginning and read the early purposed drafts and how the wording barely changed at all from Pickney's initial draft of the Constitution through subsequent revisions.
Pretty similar to what Virgina and New York had to say as well. But I'm sure all that "delegating authority" to the FedGov and accepting Federal limitations on what were State powers under the Confederacy were just things that they needed a Judge to explain to them... All that talk about "Citizens Rights" in the individual tense was just them not realizing that the very system they were talking about was merely protecting a class of "collective" Rights.
Yeah right... sure they were.
No, I recommend you point out where the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was to protect this individual RKBA.
Wow. Thanks for the link. I'm still reading and catching up on this thread.
Everything so far seems pretty clear to me...we should have a restriction on the number of lawyers we create in this country per year.
We should also have a three year waiting period for those that enter law school. We could call it a cooling off period.
Speech given as a preamble to introducing one of the final forms for the Constitution, complete with "the Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Note: It doesn't say sh*t about "the Right of a State to keep and bear a militia". It doesn't say the "right of a community to regulate firearms ownership." It clearly states the "right of the people".
And in the State debates it was worded thusly:
Mr. Wythe:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
Still other variations of the Amendment read like this:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
You don't have to like it Bobby, but you will not be allowed to get away with such outrageous lies.
In the New York Debates, they worded it this way:
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
That the militia should not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection.
In Delaware they capitalized "People:
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.
But otherwise the same...
When Vermont sent their ratification in, they included this:
Do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, fully and entirely approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said Constitution; and declare that, immediately from and after this state shall be admitted by the Congress into the Union, and to a full participation of the benefits of the government now enjoyed by the states in the Union, the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever.
Or do you think John Adams didn't know what they were signing on to when he penned "the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever"...
You are delusional.
"Sec. 16. And be it further enacted, That no person demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments in said Territory; that the inhabitants of said Territory shall always be entitled to the benefits of the writ of habeas corpus, of trial by jury, of proportionate representation of the people in the legislature, and of judicial proceedings according to the course of the common law. All persons shall be bailable unless for capital offences, where the proof shall be evident or the presumption great. All fines shall be moderate, and no cruel or unusual punishments shall be inflicted, No person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers or the law of the land; and should the public exigencies make it necessary, for the common preservation, to take any person's property or demand his particular services, full compensation shall be made for the same. And in the just preservation of rights and property, it is understood and declared that no law ought ever to be made or be in force in said Territory that shall in any manner interfere with or affect private contracts or engagements bona fide and without fraud previously proved. And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.
But, how could this be if as our anti-gun troll asserts, that those Rights do not apply to the States nor to individuals. Unless, of course, our resident anti-gun troll is a completely clueless liar more concerned with propping up Brady Bunch legal fiction being used to ban firearms and severely restrict what should be an uninfringable Right.
One lower court decision, I think it was Toft, quotes from the syllabus of the Miller decision. The portion of the syllabus quoted does not, in fact, match what Miller actually says. The other lower-court cases in turn cite Toft.
Counting on a court to do anything right while people like Ginsburg are on it would be unwise, but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position. If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?
The purpose of the "militia" clause is to make explicit that the right to keep and bear arms is not about "hunting or sporting purposes".
LB ping;-)
Baloney. The "freedom of assembly" is a collective right. I can even argue that the "freedom of the press" and the "freedom of religion" is a collective right -- can I form the individual Church of Robertpaulsen and not pay taxes?
"Rights" secured by what entity? The individual state? If so, then I agree. I have no qualms with rights secured by the individual states being individual rights.
The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution (which Madison didn't even think was necessary and added it later under pressure), as written, only applied to the newly formed federal government. All it said was that the federal government could not infringe on these rights. So, the second amendment, whatever it protects, protects only from federal infringement. The state were, and still are, guided solely by their state constitutions when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms.
As you are aware, the model for the U.S. Constitution was the Articles of Confederation (ratified in 1781). That document did mention a Militia, but did not mention a right to bear arms -- meaning any such protections would have had to come from state law. From the Articles of Confederation:
"No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; 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."
In my opinion, the second amendment was more about the argument against a standing army than one of an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Founding Fathers were in favor of the federal government "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
All of the lower federal circuit courts (save one, in one case) have interpreted the second amendment as protecting the rights of the people, collectively, to keep and bear arms as part of a Militia. Don't shoot the messenger here.
Do you really want the federal government protecting your RKBA? Do you really want five liberal justices on some future U.S. Supreme Court interpreting the second amendment -- defining "arms"? Defining "keep and bear"? Then applying those interpretations to all fifty states?
Or do you trust your state to protect your gun rights?
The Freedom of individuals to come together in groups? That's your example of a "collective" right? Your first example is pure spin.
And no, Rights secured by compact with government. In this case, by the US Constitution whereby the individual States ceded authority, and submitted themselves to the authority, of the FedGov in specifically defined areas.
You are so off base with regards to the purpose of the Second Amendment it isn't even ridiculous any more. All those past quotations from the various Founders purporting the individual Right, even going as far as calling it a Duty, to keep and bear arms and you STILL think it only applies to the FedGov and that the States can just strip us of that Right by simple law...
The second amendment was to secure the right of the state to form and maintain a state militia, however they saw fit to do so.
Ah... the Brady Logic for supporting gun control. "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" is what they explicitly meant though and not your twisted 20th Century legal fiction.
Ask the folks in California, Illinois, Maryland, ect... how their "unalienable" Right to keep and bear arms is doing. You are WRONG there are well. No State may exercise a power given explicitly to the Federal Government as they ceded that authority via ratification of the Constitution. They are also bound by every other prohibition and limitation therein. Including the Rights so protected by the BoR.
Look, I know you want to retain the twisted legal reasoning that will allow you and your pals in the Brady Bunch to strip us of our Rights. But I gotta tell you, countries have fought wars over less.
I can't find this anywhere, so I really can't comment. If you have a link, I'd appreciate it.
"but a reading of what Miller actually says (joined with an understanding of what terms like "judicial notice" and "remanded" mean) makes clear that it doesn't really support the anti-gun position."
I agree. Once remanded, I believe the lower court would have found that a sawed-off shotgun was indeed "part of the ordinary military equipment" and allowed by the second amendment. As to whether Miller and Layton were "enrolled for military discipline" is questionable -- they may not have had standing to bring a second amendment case.
"If it did, why did the government offer Miller's co-defendent (Miller was deceased) Jack Layton a plea bargain for time served instead of prosecuting him?"
Frank Layton pleaded guilty to the charge of transporting a sawed-off shotgun (after the Supreme Court decision) and was placed on five year's probation by Judge Heartsill Ragon on January 8, 1940.
What happened to my ping, ya big dope?
Now you're trying to argue that the freedom of assembly is an individual right because an assembly consists of individuals? Get a grip. You keep up this childish nonsense and I'm outta here. I really don't have time to play these 3rd grade word games with you.
"and you STILL think it only applies to the FedGov and that the States can just strip us of that Right by simple law..."
I THINK it applies only to the FedGov?? No, I KNOW it only applies to the FedGov and can back that up with probably a dozen federal circuit court opinions. You, on the other hand, cannot cite one source that demonstrates the second amendment appling to the states. That does not stop you, however, from holding your breath and stomping your feet and making that claim post after post after post, ad nauseum.
And no, the states cannot "just strip us of that Right by simple law". The states are guided by their state constitution.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms" is what they explicitly meant though and not your twisted 20th Century legal fiction."
Those were Jefferson's words to the Virginia legislature as a suggestion for inclusion in the Virginia State Constitution. It was rejected. Instead, the legislature adopted, "A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State."
If Jefferson couldn't even sell that concept to his own state, I highly doubt your claim that the Founding Fathers "explicitly meant" that to apply to the second amendment. You just make this $hit up as you go along, don't you?
"how their "unalienable" Right to keep and bear arms is doing."
Your RKBA is not an unalienable right.
"No State may exercise a power given explicitly to the Federal Government"
States retained their police power.
"the twisted legal reasoning that will allow you and your pals in the Brady Bunch to strip us of our Rights"
Once you understand who's actually protecting your RKBA, the better you'll be able to do something about it. If you continue to believe that the second amendment, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court is protecting your RKBA, your rights will be gone before you know it.
An Armed Citizen, Is A Safe Citizen!
The Second Amendment...
America's Only Homeland Security!
Be Ever Vigilant!
But not one quote from the Constitution or a Founder. Typical.
Also, I've cited several sources, you just refuse to read them. I can't force you to stop being stupid. You either read what the Founders wrote, or you can continue to push your leftist court rulings.
You ignored this one for instance:
US House from June 28th, 1856
And the people of said Territory shall be entitled to the right to keep and bear arms, to the liberty of speech and of the press, as defined in the constitution of the United States, and all other rights of person or property thereby declared and as thereby defined.
And you ignored the various letters included from the State Conventions when they responded back to the Continental Congress about ratifying the US Constitution. Stuff like this:
Do, in virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, fully and entirely approve of, assent to, and ratify, the said Constitution; and declare that, immediately from and after this state shall be admitted by the Congress into the Union, and to a full participation of the benefits of the government now enjoyed by the states in the Union, the same shall be binding on us, and the people of the state of Vermont, forever.
Sounds like Vermont knew it was giving up power to the FedGov. Specific and limited. That it would accept the limitations placed on it as a member State.
You further completely ignored this:
Keep ignoring the facts. It makes you look like an utter idiot to continue to quote Brady Logic.
You cited a 400 page BOOK and suggested I read it. You couldn't even give me an excerpt.
You ignored this one for instance: US House from June 28th, 1856
Uh, yeah I ignored it. I don't consider something from 1856 as supportive of what the Founding Fathers meant by the second amendment.
"Sounds like Vermont knew it was giving up power to the FedGov"
The U.S. Constitution is a contract between the states and the newly formed federal government. Vermont was simply saying that it recognizes the contract to be binding on both parties.
"You further completely ignored this:"
How would you have me respond to a white box with a red X?
The Conclusion is certainly dead on.
VI. Conclusion
The second amendment to the Constitution had two objectives. The first purpose was to recognize in general terms the importance of a militia to a free state. This recognition derives from the very core of Classical Republican thought; its "constituency" among the Framers was found primarily among conservatives, particularly Virginia's landed gentry. Indeed, prior to Virginia's proposal, no federal ratifying convention had called for such recognition. The second purpose was to guarantee an individual right to own and carry arms. This right stemmed both from the English Declaration of Rights and from Enlightenment sources. Its primary supporters came from the Radical-Democratic movement, whether based among the small farmers of western Pennsylvania or the urban mechanics of Massachusetts. Only by incorporating both provisions (p.60)could the first Congress reconcile the priorities of Sam Adams with those of George Mason, and lessen the "disquietude" both of the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts minorities and those of the Virginia and New York majorities. The dual purpose of the second amendment was recognized by all early constitutional commentators;[264] the assumption that the second amendment had but a single objective is in fact an innovation born of historical ignorance.
The distinction between the second amendment's purposes enables us to avoid the pitfalls of the collective rights view, which would hold that the entire amendment was meant solely to protect a "collective right" to have a militia.[265] The militia component of the second amendment was not meant as a "right", collective or individual, except in the sense that structural provisions (e.g., requirements that money bills originate in the House, or military appropriations not exceed two years) are considered collective "rights." Indeed, the militia component was meant to invoke the exertion of governmental power over the citizen, to inspire it to require citizens to assume the burdens of militia duty. In this respect it differs radically from any other provision of the Bill of Rights. To read what was a recognition of an individual right, the right to arms, as subsumed within the militia recognition is thus not only permitting the tail to wag the dog, but to annihilate what was intended as a right.[266] As the one (p.61)provision of the Bill of Rights which encourages rather than restricts governmental action, the militia component's terms were necessarily vague and its phrasing a reminder rather than a command.[267]
The right to arms portion of the second amendment, in contrast, was meant to be a prohibition, as fully binding as those in the remainder of the Bill of Rights. Madison intended that the second amendment be read as incorporating the individual rights proposals put forward by the Pennsylvania minority and by Sam Adams and the New Hampshire convention. Judging from contemporary discussion in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, he succeeded.[268] If either clause can be accorded primacy, it is the right to arms clause; only in Virginia, at the eleventh hour of the ratification process, was a militia clause appended to a federal bill of rights proposal.
Reading the entirety of the second amendment as militia-related, based upon some contemporary references to the need for constitutional (p.62)recognition of the militia concept, confuses the purpose of one provision with the text of another. The second amendment, in short, cannot be explained simply as a last avowal of the classical ideal, as "the last act of the Renaissance."[269] Rather, it is a bridge between the decline of that ideal and the rise of the liberal democracy. Part of the second amendment looks backward to the worlds of Polybius and Machiavelli; but part looks forward, to the worlds of Jefferson and Jackson. Only a recognition of the dual nature of the second amendment will enable us to give meaning to the aspirations of Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams as well as those of George Mason.[270]
"The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." -- Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2
"The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by rule of construction be conceived to give Congress the power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." -- William Rawle, 1825
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.