Sanity has entered the argument, what ever shall we do now?
Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
It doesn't. The Framers didn't intend it. The Supreme Court hasn't incorporated it, even under the premise of the 14th Amendment, 218 years after it was ratified.
>>”They represent the state. Their speech cannot be silenced, except when on the job.” —RobRoy<<
Yes, but that does not have anything to do with what you posted. As I said in the same post, my company can control what I say on the job. Freedom of speech only counts when you are on your own time. The government cannot control other companies or individuals, but they certainly can control their own employees. And especially if something they say or do causes the governent, with the employee being their agent, violating the constitution.
What ticks me off is that to get some licenses your speech is severely limited, and I think unconstitutionally.
You cannot say, in a real estate ad, “close to a church”. I do not think that would pass the SCOTUS.
What, my friend, does it say then? Its written in plain English.
I don’t like judicial activism, regardless of its goals. I think that conservatives should be consistent on that point, else we’re little better than the other side.
Mojave must want dope legalized, I can't fathom any other reason for his argument.
The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be addedThe Constitution was a grant of powers FROM the states TO the federal government, not the other way around.
I don't care whether you get arrested or not.
That is understood. That would be your basic ratification by the states. So you are taking the reverse engineering approach though and saying that “he giveth, therefore he taketh away.” In essence.
One of Jefferson's greatest fears, looks like fear was not unfounded.
Lawyers are sort of like artists. "I am an artist and art is whatever I say it is." (Not my quote, one used by an artist to justify sexual acts on a public street, he called it art so therefore it was protected by the first.)
Would you then agree, that if 51% of California wanted a gun ban, that you would support the government of California’s right to do so?
Sanity has entered the argument, what ever shall we do now?
Local public schools aren't owned by the federal government.
Universally understood to apply only to the federal government.
Presser:
The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government...
There's no Second Amendment bar to it. Depending on the weapons, there could arguably be an Article 1 Section 8 objection.
Presser:
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
“Universally understood to apply only to the federal government.”
But in essence what you are saying is that, at will, states are given to do whatever they please?
Dred Scott was sanity?
It is not the water, it is the prescription pot.
I know that wasn't directed to me, but this is starting to feel like "the endless thread."
The RKBA can and does exist independently from the 2nd amendment. It even uses the same words, "RKBA" that the 2nd amendment uses. But the RKBA does not depend on the 2nd for its life within the states. States are not free to prohibit keep and bear arms, even setting the 2nd aside. The United States Supreme Court said exactly that.
Mojave's concern is that if the feds are the ultimate and only authority on what RKBA means, then RKBA can be reduced, by Congress and SCOTUS, to an unrecognizable form -- and those clamoring for incorporation will bear the lion's share of the blame for that.
He even expressed an example - federal law prohibiting CCW. Maybe that's not in the cards for about 20-50 years, so how about federal licensing and/or registration, with a periodic re-up.
The feds are not your friend.
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”
That decision right there says there can be no bar to it regardless of where it comes from. No government has the jurisdiction to ban firearms.
No, but they are not private. They are “government” - and all that that implies.
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.