Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
In fact, if your line of reasoning is trying to discern the direction of future SCOTUS decisions, as opposed to discussing the natural right and wrong of the matter, I’m probably in partial agreement with your prognostication. See my post at 125.
The same “people” as are referred to in the 10th Amendment.
Back in 1792, "the people" who were protected by the second amendment were as I described for the reason I described. Over the years, what constitutes "the people" has changed, either by statute or by constitutional amendment. But it still doesn't mean "all persons".
Don’t know if it’s been stated or not but the NRA has nothing to do with the Parker case AT ALL. They’ve actually tried derailing it on several occasions. First by filing their own broader suit and attempting desperately to combine the two. The NRA lost their suit while CATO and Parker won theirs. The second time was when the NRA attempted to get legislation fast tracked through Congress that would have made the matter moot.
The plaintiff in the case, Parker and the people backing him have adamantly refused funding from ANY group or individual specifically so they will remain beholden to no one. This way, the NRA and other shaky groups can’t take over the case.
The author of this article needs to print a correction on the matter.
And the NRA needs to sit down and STFU.
Mike
Killer return jab on that analogy!
Or soon thereafter. The usefulness of state militias was debunked in the War of 1812. Some say the corresponding usefulness of the second amendment went with it.
"The real intent of the Founding Fathers on gun ownership ..."
The Founding Fathers did not trust the federal government -- to think they'd look to it to protect their individual RKBA is ludicrous. Their state protected their RKBA.
"If the intent of the Constitution were upheld there would be NO gun laws, except those restricting felons."
The federal gun laws should reflect the wishes of the states.
"and the states are forbidden from writing and enforcing those of their own by virtue of the Constitution"
The second amendment never did, and still doesn't, apply to the states. When originally written, no amendment applied to the states. In my opinion, none should apply today.
That is right. Illegal aliens, for example, do not have Constitutional protection. They may well possess the rights listed there, since rights derive not from the Constitution but from "Our Creator", but they are not a party to the legal contract between American citizens and the government known as the Constitution.
"The People" refered to in that document are those who are party to the contract, that is, all American citizens.
In reply to #67...
The first part of the phrase “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.” is explanatory, in other words is gives reason why the second part of the statement is there. It defines the basis on which the whole sentence exists.
An example of modern wording be... “Because a properly outfitted militia, being necessary to the security of the freedom of the citizens, the right of the people to keep and carry arms shall not be infringed.”
The wording is quite clear to anyone who understands English. All the “collective” rights BS arguements that are out there are based on pathetically poor English language skills. But it’s not hard to see how people today misread the Amendment since most of those idiots aren’t even “Smarter than a 5th grader.”
Mike
And those are?
PING!
“When the second amendment was written, it only protected the right for white male citizens, 18-45 years of age. Non-whites (slaves) were not protected. Non-citizens, women, and children were not protected under the second amendment.”
You keep repeating this. I’m going to have to ask that you point out in the US Constitution where it says this. The only place ANY distinction was made was apportionment, and not in the context of any rights, but instead in the duties and commissions of the government.
You believe that the only rights we have are the ones approved of by the judiciary. “Incorporated” you call it.
I keep pointing you toward Article VI para 2. The Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the land, regardless of what your beloved judges do or do not say. Each state had to ratify the Constitution in its entirety, accepting all the principles and rights affirmed therein. The Bill of Rights applies across the board.
And your wordplay doesn’t change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Founding.
None of your beloved black-robed tyrants can change that.
God help them if they try.
National Guard - not a militia
Sounds like a picnic. Will you be bringing sandwiches? I can bring beer.
Yes. Today, that subset is larger.
I agree with you. However, the gun grabbing left will not see that logic.
If true, it's unique in the U.S. Constitution. The Founders somehow didn't think it necessary to do that elsewhere. I wish they would have, especially in the Commerce Clause.
"The wording is quite clear to anyone who understands English."
If the second amendment protected this right for "all persons", then I'd say you were right. But it doesn't. "The people" did not mean "all persons". It meant those qualified for the Militia.
It excluded non-whites. It excluded women and children. It excluded non-citizens.
What else are we to conclude, other than the second amendment protected the RKBA of individuals in the Militia from federal infringement?
See, you just make things up to fit your leftist world view. It doesn't say that anywhere. It doesn't say "the right of militia members to keep..." it says "the people. In modern English, it says that since militias are the foundation of securing the State, the right of all citizens to own and carry arms can't be screwed with in any way. Only lawyers and politicians are too stupid to be able to read and understand it. And that is only because their agendas cloud their comprehension skills.
I must have missed the part that said "white." You keep repeating it. Can you direct me to it?
“The usefullness of state militias was debunked in the War of 1812.” Jackson must not have heard of that. Further, most units from brigade size on down in the Civil War were raised as local and state militia, particularly in the South, but in the North as well,
“The Founding Fathers did not trust the federal government-—...)
Of course not. We shouldn’t either. As for individual right TKBA, I repeat: read the Federalist Papers, if you know what they are and where to find them.
“The federal gun laws should reflect the wishes of the states”:
The Constitution limits government, not individuals. I’m surprised you didn’t know that, because that’s what makes our constitution unique in the world. Consequently, the Constitution protects individual RTKBA, or should, even from the states. Re-read your post; you’re contradicting yourself.
You’re right about the Second Amendment not applying to states. It applies to individuals; therefore, you’ve talked yourself in to a circle.
When it comes to the “people” in carry of “arms” determined to include or not include a specific weapon. At one time “arms” could be defined as long bows as in my post #25 . Some “arms” are considered legal and some are not. The Government can escape “defined” arms in their arsenal. They can become the Goliath.
The laws of states, for instance, have determined what “arms” you can or cannot own, carry, even perhaps location of ammunition to that related firearm. Was the threat even ruled justified in your right to protect self, family, property, etc.
The enemy, lunatic and/or any criminal, however, abide by no laws laid out by lawmakers and politicians of the land.
Maybe more clearly understood in
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2007/03/dc_handgun_ban.php
Just my opinion.
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.