Posted on 05/02/2007 2:14:58 PM PDT by neverdem
You didn't ask me, but my opinion is 'nothing different than the way it is right now'.
American gun owners are currently bearing arms (in most cases, depending on the interpretation of various state constitutions) under the notion that RKBA is a collective right.
If Parker vs. DC loses at the USSC, what's the difference?
What makes you think my doing so again will change your mind?
There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law.
He then set out to rectify this and is largely given credit for penning the Original BoR. Even better than Marshall, Mason himself knew what he was writing.
Then California, Illinois, Denver, New York, ect... can pass outright bans without impediment. No appeal via the "Justice system" would be viable.
It'd be time to take up arms IOW.
I think that they can do that in those places anyway. That’s what we’ve got right now.
Without that, you've got nothing.
Well, that explains it. Simply declare a ruling wrong and everything falls into place.
So after Marshall left the court, this error was corrected? Ever? By any court?
Rights would be protected and you wouldn't have to ask permission to exercise them. Your petty dictator down at City Hall couldn't arbitrarily take them away from you.
The BoR was to be our "Declaration of the Rights of Man". Broad and general. Something every US citizen, regardless of where in the US they lived, could look to and know that these basic and fundamental Rights were off limits to Government.
Turn that on it's head and we are no better than France or Russia.
The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed.
How much more f*cking plain does it need to get?
George Mason wrote the BoR. Marshall's "interpretation" re-wrote the scope of the Constitution. Legislating and Amending is done by Congress and the States. Not the judiciary.
Yes, right. That’s my point. What’s to lose? They’re already doing it to us now anyway.
I'm not too sure about that. I think the sh*tstorm that would occur would force even some liberal Democrats to decide to back such an amendment. And there IS another mechanism (never thus far used) that bypasses the Congress completely. If 3/4ths of the state legislatures call for a new Constitutional Convention, one WILL be called. It's a danged dangerous option, though.
"That's why we have to continue to press the fight for our RKBA at the legislative level at least as hard as at the judicial level."
Oh, I definitely agree. The thing that "gun rights" folks should push for besides CCW, is, in those states that have no RKBA in the state Constitutions, is to have one passed.
Yes it is. Once a constitutional convention is convened the entire existing Constitution is up for revision. I don't trust the mental midgets who would run the show today not to irresponsibly mess around with the masterpiece document that the 18th century masterminds created and bequeathed to all succeeding generations of Americans.
It has been about seven years since last researching the legal opinions of some of the 19th century rulings regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms. However, in my recollection one ruling stood out as especially meaningful. It was not about the second amendment, which state constitutions and popular awareness understood as about individuals—those individuals who are so focal in the origination of our philosophy of government and the meaning of the statements in our founding documents. The ruling was about the meaning of being a person. The case was that of Dred Scott and it is perhaps the most infamous case in U.S.S.C history. In the majority opinion, I believe it is Justice Taney’s words that suggest the states obviously did not intend that blacks would be given the full rights of the citizens of each states and that doing so would be a threat to public safety.
, “...and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.”
I consider this decision fully revealing regarding the meaning of the second amendment by its casual inclusion in the opinion. But, if you need more explanation of the individual rights meaning of the second amendment, I offer to you more writings related to the case.
“Another of the early laws of which we have spoken, is the first militia law, which was passed in 1792, at the first session of the second Congress. The language of this law is equally plain and significant with the one just mentioned. It directs that every ‘free able-bodied white male citizen’ shall be enrolled in the militia.”
In all, the matter of an individual or collective right is a recent argument of no substantive value to issues of handguns or long arms. The second amendment sees the individual as the best tool to maintaining freedom and many other writings point to the mistrust of a large standing government army. What is important is that each American has the un-infringed right to keep and bear arms and each American’s role in the militia is offered as sufficient reason. There are many other good reasons, I believe, not explicitly put forth in the second amendment but implied in the concept of defense.
We have neglected the individual’s role in collective security and that has added greatly to the confusion about the second amendment. Our nation has never faced up to its weakening support of the idea that its citizens are the best defenders of freedom. The point of debate should be about that. Only after that debate can a debate about removing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms be considered. I know how I fall on that issue in an era when diffuse and varied dangers appear in many aspects of modern life.
Are you a full citizen or are you denied the rights of free persons?
My $.02—thank you for reading and considering.
I don’t know where you two make up this BS about your opposition. You’re so wrapped up with the gov’t deciding (with or without people’s consent) what “rights” are allowed, and to what degree, that you’re completely blinded to the notion that some individual rights exist regardless of what anyone else says, and that governments (fed and state and local) are obligated to respect, if not outright protect, them.
“But here’s an interesting thought: Justice Souter was mugged jogging in Washington DC. He might think there’s a personal right to arms.”
One can have ones brain’s beaten out, but to beat brains into a human skull seems to only be doable while the human is still a child and then only when the parents are consistent with their application of the rod.
Did you hear what the mugger said? “Gimme your cash!”
Souter replied “I am Supreme Court Justice Souter.”
Then the mugger said “Gimme my cash!”
First Amendment regulations are largely limited to matters of use (libel, slander, etc.) and connections to horrific crimes (kiddie porn), both of which have little/no justifiable purpose in society. Your connection is a non-sequitor, as nearly all guns are used in a manner neutral, if not helpful, to society.
First Amendment regulations do NOT go anywhere close to what you yourself described as treating the 1st like the 2nd, whereby only those with library cards would be able to possess/read books, and those only what the library owned.
The New York Supreme Court clarified that in Guida v. Dier, 375 N.Y.S.2d 826, 828 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1975) when they said: "The right guaranteed by the Second Amendment…and further defined in Section 4 of Article 2 of the (New York -rp) Civil Rights Law does not extend to pistols or other readily concealable hand weapons. Rather, those guarantees protect only the right to be armed with weaponry suitable for use by the militia in warfare and for the general defense of the community."
This coming from a state which totally prohibits machineguns, short-barreled rifles, destructive devices, and silencers - all of which are plainly suitable for modern warfare (M16s are machineguns, M4s have barrels under 16", mortars & grenades are destructive devices, and the silencer industry can't keep up with military demand now).
“The militia were expected to deal with the weaponry of a regular standing army. Crew served weapons should remain with the organized militia, i.e. National Guard and Reserve Components of the United States Armed Forces.”
Sorry ‘bout having to tell you this, but individuals DID own crew served weapons (cannon) and individuals even owned warships (privateers).
I am far less worried that some tank owner will turn whacko than that the nice Mexican walking down the street may be part of the Mexican criminal population.
The crime stats support my position regarding relative risks described above..
Red herring. You have repeatedly promoted the bizarre position that a concealed carry ban doesn't violate the 2nd Amendment.
Red herring. The early states did, without Constitutional objections from the Founding Fathers.
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.