Are You 'Right' To Own A Gun?

DC Examiner ^ | 8/3/06 | Marc Danzinger

[robertpaulsen]

"Do you continue to claim that a freed slave in the state of Virginia, for example, was granted only the "privileges and immunities" of citizens of the US. Or do you recognize that such a freed slave was recognized by the Fourteenth Amendment to be a citizen of Virginia?"

I already answered this. Congress did what it could with the 14th amendment by protecting the rights of 'citizens of the United States'. The had no power over the states as to what rights would be extended to the freedmen as Citizens of the State, assuming they registered with the state as a resident.

The Jim Crow laws (replacing the Black Codes) passed by the states limited the rights of the freedmen in their state. In order to overcome this, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875, but the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated most of that legislation in 1883.

Quite frankly, I don't know how the 14th amendment ever got three-fourths of the states to vote for it.

[robertpaulsen]

"The right is inalienable."

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

An inalienable right is God-given (like life or liberty) and may not be taken away by man without individual due process. The right to defend yourself is inalienable, yes. The right to defend yourself with a gun is not. The RKBA is not an inalienable right.

The government may execute or imprison a man only after he has received his due process via a trial. The government -- federal, state, or local -- may prohibit all those under 21 from owning handguns, without individual due process.

[robertpaulsen]

Ah. So in 1868 the freedmen had all the rights of the whites.

I learn something every day.

[robertpaulsen]

"The know nothings acting in the service of Sarah Brady always claim that state constitutional protections aren't necessary."

Thereby explaining why nothing has been accomplished in 20 years. And if tpaine and William Tell represent the typical California citizen, I doubt they'll ever wake up and smell the coffee.

[tpaine]

-- the prohibitionists can try to take our inalienable rights, -- but at some point the people will wake up & say 'enough'; -- and throw you 'democratic' clowns out.

Until one day he wakes up, unarmed,

You believe in a sort of 'gun fairy' paulsen? One that will come round at night and make all those evil guns just disappear? -- Dream on

and says, "robertpaulsen WAS right after all!"

Get help. Your delusions are growing like a cancer.

"inalienable." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. An inalienable right is God-given

Given? Nope. -- Our rights are inseparable from our lives. - Innate, irregardless of religious beliefs.

(like life or liberty)

Strange how you forget (property) -- like guns.

and may not be taken away by man without individual due process.

Yet you advocate 'malum prohibitum' laws.. -- Laws that take away property without individual due process. - [delusional/conflicted reasoning]

The right to defend yourself is inalienable, yes.

You admit my premise above, Then you deny it with delusional & conflicted reasoning below..

The right to defend yourself with a gun is not. The RKBA is not an inalienable right.

The government may execute or imprison a man only after he has received his due process via a trial.

You admit 'due process' above. -- Then you deny it with delusional & conflicted reasoning below..

The government -- federal, state, or local -- may prohibit all those under 21 from owning handguns, without individual due process.

-- Our governments -- federal, state, or local -- may write reasonable regulations on certain public aspects of owning guns using due process of constitutional law. -- But prohibitions violate due process, just as the second Justice Harlan recognized:

     " -- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. 
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . ."

[tpaine]

And if tpaine and William Tell represent the typical California citizen, I doubt they'll ever wake up and smell the coffee.

We citizens are fully awake, and can smell the stink of majority rule paulsen/mojovites.

[Mojave]

Their willful ignorance is appalling.

"The prohibition alluded to as contained in the amendments to the constitution, as well as others with which it is associated in those articles, were not designed as limits upon the State governments in reference to their own citizens. They are exclusively restrictions upon federal power, intended to prevent interference with the rights of the States, and of their citizens." Fox v. Ohio, 46 U.S. 410 (1847)

[robertpaulsen]

There is no basis for anyone to believe that the BOR applied to the states before the 14th amendment. None. Not even a certain poster's constant inane reference to the Supremacy Clause. Certainly your cite is but one more example of that.

But even better are the U.S. Supreme Court cites after the ratification of the 14th. My favorite is Twitchell v. Pennsylvania which the Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.

This was on April 5, 1869, nine months after the 14th was ratified. I guess someone should have told them, huh?

[Mojave]

Another example of the court's exasperation with such arguments:

"We have looked carefully through the record, and cannot find that any question is presented which has not been many times decided. We have held over and over again that art. 7 of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States relating to trials by jury applies only to the courts of the United States..." - Pearson v. Yewdall, 95 U.S. 294 (1877)

[Dead Corpse]

Last I checked, minting money was in fact a legit Federal function. The counterfitting of which is in fact a crime.

When you post something relevent, let us know will you?

[Dead Corpse]

As opposed to the 7th applying to the Courts of Canada?

Silly little Roscoe troll...

[Dead Corpse]

There is no basis for anyone to believe that the BOR applied to the states before the 14th amendment. None.

Except for the quotations from the Founders who wrote it? Yeah... whatever...

[tpaine]

Paulsen recites 'the line':

"-- There is no basis for anyone to believe that the BOR applied to the states before the 14th amendment. None.
But even better are the U.S. Supreme Court cites after the ratification of the 14th.
My favorite is Twitchell v. Pennsylvania which the Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.

This was on April 5, 1869, nine months after the 14th was ratified. --"


The Supreme Court, judicial activism, and fraudulent interpretation of the 14th Amendment
The Temple of Karnak: How Rogue Judges Have Been Strangling Your Democracy
by
D. J. Connolly


Address:http://ttokarnak.home.att.net/UnnaturalSelection.html


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hmmmmm, -- the 'Temple of Karnak' says:

THE "INCORPORATION" COVER STORY

"-- If the 14th Amendment empowered federal courts to enforce the Bill of Rights against the states, this was one of the best kept secrets in American history.  
There was no clue to this intent in the four enforcement Acts that Congress passed contemporaneous with the Amendment.

 Furthermore, the Supreme Court itself was totally unaware of this sweeping new power a scant nine months after the Amendment was ratified.  The Court decided Twitchell v. Pennsylvania on April 5, 1869.

Mr. Twitchell had been convicted of murder under a process which his lawyer claimed violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.  The Supreme Court (unanimously) disposed of the case by citing the original understanding that the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government, not the states.  Nobody mentioned the 14th Amendment.

 If the 14th Amendment was intended to "incorporate" the Bill of Rights against the states, you would think that nine months after it was ratified somebody would have known about this intent, either the plaintiff's lawyer, or one of the nine eminent constitutional lawyers on the 1869 Supreme Court. --"

Paulsen --- are you authorized to use
D. J. Connolly's words as your own?

[Dead Corpse]

Well... yeah... Except of course cites like this one:

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals … It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.

Which predates your idiot, racist, anti-Rights protections court cases.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "I already answered this. Congress did what it could with the 14th amendment by protecting the rights of 'citizens of the United States'. "

Now you appear to be willfully ignoring what I have posted.

I'll try again.

Here is part of the Fourteenth Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Now here is the same sentence with just the relevant content highlighted: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

To make it even more recognizable, here is the relevant content isolated from the rest:All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens ... of the State wherein they reside.

It can't be any plainer than this. Despite your wishing that "federalism" was supreme, the Fourteenth Amendment grants power to the central government using the Constitutional amendment process. It grants the power to the federal government to grant state citizenship and it exercises that power. This goes far beyond your claim of very limited "privileges and immunities" that you and an early court have claimed.

Every right of state citizenship has been granted to anyone described by the Fourteenth Amendment. Your use of the now contradicted "limited" nature of the Fourteenth Amendment is revealed to be just a convenient misinterpretation to justify limiting the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment despite later court rulings that "incorporate" privileges and immunities that you don't agree with.

You have yet to provide any convincing argument that would justify omission of the Second Amendment from the "privileges and immunities" of US citizens. Certainly any claim that the Fourteenth Amendment was limited in scope is extremely unconvincing.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said:"The right to defend yourself is inalienable, yes. The right to defend yourself with a gun is not."

Are there any means of self-defense which ARE unalienable? Or may governments outlaw all of them?

[Mojave]

Last I checked, minting money was in fact a legit Federal function.

Thanks for the non sequitur.

[Mojave]

"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals

People at large. Looks like the self-proclaimed anarchist shot himself in the foot yet again.

BTW, why did you alter the sentence by changing capitalization and inserting bracketed text? Gotta link to the actual letter as opposed to your falsified portion of it?

[Mojave]

Every right of state citizenship has been granted to anyone described by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Yep. And the BOR has not had a blanket incorporation into rights "of state citizenship."

[Mojave]

As opposed to the 7th applying to the Courts of Canada?

No, as opposed to municipal, county and state courts.

Poor you.