My Twins...
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 ...
"-- whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, --"
Hear! Hear!
You are as dense as a stone.
An illegal law allows you to ban concealed carry in your fictitious restaurant, but not me. However you would have the right to refuse service even to a "negro".
For you to say that I don't have a clue is stupid. You are not smart enough to get a job that pays well enough for you to buy a clue. I am educated, you however appear to be a liberal girl that is scared of guns and free men.
Placing you in the "gun nut" category.
I choose to be a gun enthusiast instead of a barely literate liberal.
Apparently you didn't get a choice.
Actually, it does. But because of your aforementioned judicial activism, it "doesn't".
It is apparently a waste of time to try to educate folks that would prefer to be subjects rather than citizens.
Maybe if we post some gun porn they will get scared, start twitching and leave?
My Twins...
Well, you said I can't prohibit an inanimate object like a gun from my restaurant because that gun has constitutional protection.
I can, however, ban a Negro from my restaurant because he has none. Here ya go:
Again, you are confusing your view of the world with reality.
If you violate the gun laws of a state, you will go to a real jail, not a fantasy one. You may not like that reality, but it's just the way things are.
I don't like that reality either and I want to change them. The first part of solving a problem is figuring out what the problem is and then formulating solutions. Ignoring reality is not helpful.
Yeah, but it was the "fantasy" that the Founders wrote into the Constitution that activist Judges, exceeding their Constitutional authority, took away.
This is fixable. But people need to realize that the Founders Fantasy is supposed to be our Reality.
Starting with people like you...
Sure, walk around Chicago or New York with a gun and let's see if Barron v Baltimore is null and void.
The fact that fed/state & local govt's are ignoring the supremacy of "shall not be infringed" does not mean that the 'Barron' decision is valid.
You have a problem of using the word "is" when "should be" is the appropriate choice.
You have a problem of using the word "is" ['Barron "is" valid law'] when "should not be" is the appropriate constitutional choice.
Here are the facts:
(1) Barron v Baltimore is not null and void.
Read the 14th. -- States cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property [guns are property] without due process of law. ['laws' prohibiting guns are not due process.
(2) Marshall was not "trying to save the union" in Barron v Baltimore - maybe you should read up on the case.
The Nullification Crisis of 1832/1833, nearly touched off a civil war. -- Marshall was supporting 'states rights' in a misguided, senile effort to diffuse the crisis.
"-- 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. --"
(3) The 14th amendment does not overturn Barron v Baltimore but instead has given the SCOTUS another route to apply the Bill of Rights to the states
The SCOTUS chose "another route" [incorporation] to apply the Bill of Rights to the states, in order to assert their control over the process. - Thus, the legal fiction that our RKBA's can be infringed is enabled.
(4) The SCOTUS has had 175 years to overturn Barron v Baltimore and has repeatedly refused to do so, even after the passage of the 14th amendment (they chose incorporation instead via the 14th instead). If the Supremacy clause really means what you think it does then why hasn't any SCOTUS in 175 years realized that?
Because the Courts and the fed/state/local govt's all ~want the power~ to ignore the Bill of Rights, the 14th Amendment, -- and Article VI.
-- This is a fairly simple political concept, one we've been arguing for 220 years.
Get it yet?
(5) The 2nd amendment currently does not apply to the states.
Dream on; the 2nd has always applied to every level of gov't in the USA.
And you are MORE than bordering on tyranny and socialism. I would FAR rather have too LITTLE government than too much. But then, I've mostly learned to be self-reliant and don't need to have someone take care of me... and WON'T pay to take care of someone else against my will.
And John Marshall was one of those Founders. True, this is fixable and I've actually listed some possible approaches that can be taken. Note that "ignoring reality and pretending that Barron v Baltimore is null and void even though it really isn't" is not one of them.
The chances of getting an unanimous 175 year old decision by a John Marshall court overturned is virtually zero. Marshall was a federalist and not a "states rights guy", was a delegate to the convention and was a key player in getting the constitution ratified. Even with the passage of the 14th amendment, the SCOTUS has bent over backwards not to overturn the decision but to go around it with due process clause.
Fixing this will involved working with the 14th amendment or the idea that the unique wording of the 2nd amendment has always applied it to the states even though the other 7 amendments were not.
Here's another "gun nut" on that same issue.
"--- Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those. --"
1,219 posted on 04/17/2003 5:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Which means what exactly? I've posted quotes from several other Founders that argue contrary to Marshall's decision in the twilight of his years.
Even assuming the 14th is in play, Amendments apply when ratified. There is no "judicial notice" component ANYWHERE in the Constitution. Once ratified, they are part of the "Supreme Law of the Land". End of story.
Actually, short barrelled shotguns WERE used extensively during WWI, the relevent period for Miller. They were also used frequently during WWII, Korea and Vietnam. I even saw one guy carrying a sawed-off M-14... so a sawedoff 12 ga. IS, indeed, a useful militia/military weapon AND has the advantage that it's quite inexpensive (for the less well-heeled militia member) and can serve double duty as an ideal home defense weapon.
All of the weapons on the bench in the lower right are full auto.
How short?
Great quote there!
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.