Posted on 01/28/2008 8:39:17 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Context...
Any "extensive legal regulation" (hyperbole!) was the KING'S regulations. This author is essentially stating..."well, since there were regulations when we were ruled by the King of merry ol' England, then that is the premise upon which we must factor our understanding of our constitution. Horsey pucky!
It is from exactly that monarch's rule we wished to Declare our Independence. So to use the monarch's law as a basis for understanding our forefathers' intent is silliness in the extreme. The best way to understand any author's meaning is to let the author explain it, not let his sworn enemies deifine his intent! And we can read the needed explanations in the Federalist papers and the various quotes from our Founding Fathers.
The King had subjects who only had rights the government decided they had.
We declared ourselves to be citizens, based upon rights our Creator gave us.
The author needs to revise many of his premises before printing this leftist drivel.
Howeve, on another note...we could probably make a strong argument for basing our understanding up Scottish Law....riiiiiight?.../s
I agree but if you buy one and MUST have the sale registered, hold it for six months then SELL IT in a private sale and buy a replacement in a private sale. This will prevent the feds from having an accurate database as to the location of the weapons.
If, we the people are going to maintain power over the government, we must not permit them to have a database.
More important, I think is to store ammunition because without ammo all weapons are useless. I see the day coming when the primers of rounds will disintegrate within specific time periods ( 5 years or so ) making the ammo unusable. The ammo you now have is the ammo that we know is good. Save that stuff and replace it with newer ammo.
Put your older ammo in proper storage containers and protect it from the effects of fluctuating temperatures and moisture.
I have a few of those, and several ‘black’ .308 rifles as well. I don’t have enough ammo, only about 1000 rounds per gun. (Can you ever have enough? My goal is 2K per gun.)
I don’t carry a gun…
… to kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don’t carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun
because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m paranoid. I carry a gun
because there are real threats in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m evil. I carry a gun
because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don’t carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun
because I understand the limitations of government.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m angry. I carry a gun so that I don’t have to
spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don’t carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to
die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don’t carry a gun because I’m a cowboy. I carry a gun
because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.
I don’t carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun
because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.
I don’t carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun
because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.
I don’t carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun
because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
“Police Protection” is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.
Although the Supreme Court has accepted the case, I don't believe that there is any requirement that they actually deliver a decision.
If Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas all support the correct reading, then I don't think they will view it as advisable to allow Kennedy to "compromise" on a fundamental individual right. Either Kennedy goes along or the conservative four will see to it that Kennedy is saddled with an incredibly wrong reading from the libs on the court. There will be pressure on Kennedy, if he can't see the truth, to simply deny a majority to any decision. The Court would then announce that the DC decision stands with no further comment. This would "kick the can down the road" for a later Court.
As for the Court rendering a "narrow" decison, that is hardly possible. Either it is an individual right or it isn't. Either the right is "fundamental" or it isn't. If it is not fundamental, then the Court could consider permitting the DC infringement and not otherwise. If it is fundamental, then the DC ban is out and 20,000 laws across the nation are in jeopardy.
One need only ask, "Did the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit the disarming of freed slaves after the Civil War?" This is really the only question that one need ask.
The Democrats, while not having to state so in such explicit terms, obviously believe that the individual states have the right to disarm black people.
The moves towards making military surplus ammo unobtainable may bear your fears out.
The Klintonistas made it illegal to sell US military surplus ammo to commoners, and 'dUBYA' has choked off importation of other countries military surplus to a tiny trickle. I have only a few thousand rounds of ammo that will last 50 years or more. The rest is commercial and won't store well.
Any old timers out there ready to hang up the rifles and don't have relatives who want the stuff?
JOAT will happily purchase your old military surplus .308, 30-06, .223(5.56) ammo!
Obfuscation; the central question is whether the language is enough to decide the right or to disallow it.
Why would any reasonable man conclude that if the government was to hold that right to itself would it be so central to the all-important Bill of Rights to then include it as the penultimate right of a free society?
What an incredible argument.
The authors of the brief are suggesting that Congress has the power to define the militia as consisting of only infants below the age of two years, and that, therefor, all other people can be disarmed. No state could form a "well-regulated Militia" if Congress had such power.
The situation today demonstrates clearly that Congress could and has neglected the arming and organizing of anything that could be mistaken for a state militia. This makes it all too obvious that Congress does not have the power to disarm THE PEOPLE regardless of how they define the militia.
>Past due time for their unConstitutional expansions of legislative power to be repealed en banc.<
The only way that’s going to happen is when term limits are permitted. I don’t see that coming for a long time.
If not, then not. DC ban stays put, they weasel an opinion to cover their asses, and a bunch of fringe "gun nuts" start "voting from the roof tops" as new gun control legislation is penned in half the States in the Union.
Involuntary term limits. If they don’t want to go, toss ‘em out.
The BoR was written as a set of prohibitions on government, not citizens; all subsequent regulations have come about through political subversions of unspecifed included rights thought to have been incorporated in the 9th and 10th Amendments.
As far as ammo, you're right on the money. There is much less of a constitutional guarantee on the right to possess ammo than there is firearms. I firmly believe the gun-grabbers will go after ammo, regardless of the DC outcome.
Of course the decision can be narrowed to the DC area, that is what the case is about. Not any of the other laws on the books. DC is a special case under the control of the Congress since it is not one of the 'several states'.
As I said, the decision will deal only with DC and run along the lines that since DC is not one of the 'several states' and under the control of Congress, the law will be overturned or returned to the lower courts decision and the city council appeal to Congress to make the law permanent.
Remember, DC has no legislative body as pertains to the states, it is under the direct control of the Congress.
Now, SCOTUS can decide that the 2nd does pertain to all citiens in the DC area, but since the DC area is considered Federal property, the law needs to be addressed by the legislative body that controls the district, not by a city council.
I am buying more guns and ammo as we chat about this.
The brief is suggesting that the struggle to obtain and possess arms during the oppression of their government played no part in the passage of the Second Amendment. It is historical nonsense of the highest degree.
The cannon which were instrumental in ejecting the occupying military forces from Boston were taken by force of arms from the existing government of the day at Fort Ticonderoga. The protection of the right of "the people", not the militia, to keep and bear arms was to relieve them of having to obtain them from an oppressive government.
Everyone,
Please post the ammo warning on every website that you visit when it is appropriate.
It would not. The Miller decision has been intentionally mistated by lower courts for almost three quarters of a century.
The prosecution in Miller asked, in its Summary of Argument, that the Court find that only militia members were protected by the Second Amendment.
The Miller Court did not agree with this argument, which would have rendered the type of arms irrelevant in the Miller case, since Miller and Layton were neither one associated with any militia. There was no suggestion that Miller or Layton could claim militia membership as protection against prosecution. The only evidence that the Supreme Court noted was lacking was with regard to the particular short-barreled shotgun possessed.
bump
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.