Then who are these guys and what are they doing?
Hint, they are soldiers but not of the US Army, they are part of the Texas Military Forces, probably Army National Guard, but I don't know for certain.
Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
On March 9, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued a groundbreaking ruling. It declared in a 2-1 decision that the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession in private homes, in effect since 1976, is unconstitutional. The court reached this conclusion after stating unequivocally that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals and not just "the militia."
It is quite likely that this ruling will be appealed to Supreme Court, which hasn't offered an interpretation of the Second Amendment since 1939.
Appalled by the District Court ruling, the Washington Post editorialized that it will "give a new and dangerous meaning to the Second Amendment" that, if applied nationally, could imperil "every gun control law on the books."
The Post accused the National Rifle Association and the Bush administration's Justice Department of trying "to broadly reinterpret the Constitution so as to give individuals Second Amendment rights."
But actually, to argue that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals is a reinterpretation of the Constitution and the original intent of the founders.
One of the major concerns of the anti-Federalists during the debate over the Constitution in 1787 was the fact that the new document lacked a Bill of Rights. In order to get the Constitution ratified, the framers promised to pass a Bill of Rights during the First Congress as amendments to the Constitution. The Second Amendment with its right to keep and bear arms became part of that package.
What was the original intent of the Second Amendment? Was the right to bear arms a collective right for militias, or an individual right for all citizens? The "Dissent of the Pennsylvania Minority," from the debates of 1787, is telling. This document speaks...
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
They thought they did, since they defined it in the 1792 Militia Act,and continue to do so today. Although to be fair, they defined who the states "Must" include, as part of their power to provide for organizing the militia, they did not exclude a larger group. Even today many states have different defintioins. Texas for example, includes all citizens, or those who have declared the intent to become citizens, not just men, and they use a larger age range as well. (18 to 60 or 65 IIRC). I'm no longer a member of the unorganzied militia of the US, but I am still a member of the reserve militia of Texas. I'm also a member of the military forces of the United States by virtue of being on the retired reserve list of the USAF, but even that doesn' provide me with any protection from having my RKBA infringed upon in California or New York City, or even Texas, under "Color of law".
Then who are these guys and what are they doing?
Hint, they are soldiers but not of the US Army, they are part of the Texas Military Forces, probably Army National Guard, but I don't know for certain.
OK, how about this then.
"A well informed electorate, being necessary for the maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
Given that, who has the right to keep and read books? Only those who vote? Or the People? The answer is clear to all who wish to see.
Case in point, Nebraska's RKBA Constitutional provision reads:
the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”
most of the words after "for" wee added in 1986, yet the State Supreme Court refused to invalidate laws against both open and concealed carry of arms when, post 1986, given the chance to do so.
The US Constitution provides that the United States shall guarantee to every State state a "Republican Form of Government". (Art. IV, Section 4) What does that mean? The Constitution does not say which branch of the government of the United States is to do the Guaranteeing, and it's not in one of the sections dedicated to a single branch (ie. Art I- Congress, Art II, Executive, Art III, Judicial) Art IV concerns itself with the relationships between the states and between states and the federal government, and also with limitations on the states (See Section 2, equal protection clause).
LOL - you consider John Marshall a "states rights" guy? You really need to brush up on your history.
Read some actual history of the era, and be ashamed of your lack of knowledge.
"-- The major political struggles during the antebellum period focused on states rights.
Southern states were dominated by 'states righters', - those who believed that the individual states should have the final say in matters of interpreting the Constitution.
Inspired by the old Democratic-Republicans, John C. Calhoun argued in his 'South Carolina Exposition and Protest' essay that the states had the right to nullify laws that they deemed unconstitutional because the states themselves had created the Constitution.
Others, such as President Andrew Jackson and Chief Justice John Marshall, believed that the federal government had authority over the states. The debate came to a head in the Nullification Crisis of 1832/1833, which nearly touched off a civil war. --"
"-- Nullification was only the most recent in a series of state challenges to the authority of the federal government.
There had been a continuing contest between the states and the national government over the power of the latter, and over the loyalty of the citizenry, almost since the founding of the republic.
The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798, for example, had defied the Alien and Sedition Acts, and in the Hartford Convention, New England voiced its opposition to President Madison and the war against the British. --"
Yes, I am familiar with this, it's actually the exact point I was making. When I was talking about "rights of the state," it was as an abstraction. The founders seem to have been aware of the dangers of the collectivist state, which considers itself a living entity, complete with rights. It is likely that for that very reason, they chose to use distinct language.
No apology necessary. Asking someone to provide proof of what they post is the norm around here and I was happy to do it. :-)
I was just tugging on your chain. No apology necessary, at least to me. Maybe one of the ladies will yell at you later.
"carrying while Black",
I had truly forgotten that aspect of history.
You seem totally confused. You seem to want to lump John Marshall into the "states rights guys" but then you post a information that says the exact opposite.
John Marshall was a strong federalist. That is common knowledge. To try to lump him into "one of the states rights guys" is idiocy.
I already noted that Taney went too far in his decision. The part of the case that actually affected Dred Scott was constitutionally sound, however.
Here's a good refresher.
So that state judges won't enforce it? Besides, my current state has one, so does the state of my birth, and the only other state I've lived in, other than the 6 weeks of my AFROTC field training, also has one. They all protect a "right to keep and bear arms". My current state says "all citizens" shall have it, my birth state says it belongs to "all persons", and that other state says it is "the right of a citizen".
They all still have gun laws which infringe on the RKBA, although not as onerous ones as they once did, which I'm sure saddens you greatly.
Shh, don't tell the British.
Not sure of your point.
And some people wish to ban bullets because they are made of lead, which causes birth defects and other nasty things.
Actually the point was to revise the Articles of Confederation.
The delegates exceeded their charter, by just a bit, well a very large bit.
I'm pretty sure that the British are already aware that the Declaration of Independence has no legal power in the United States.
Unfortunately, the same can't be same for many americans that are products of our government school system.
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.