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
Which you cannot refute, or even address.
Had the framers of these amendments intended them to be limitations on the powers of the State governments, they would have imitated the framers of the original Constitution, and have expressed that intention. Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.
Ok, then to clarify, why don’t you tell us who you think the 2nd amendment *does* apply to, only to DC? You say no state is required to honor it, so who is controlled by the 2nd? Im seriously asking, you have completely lost me.
In theory, the Framers did. The Bill of Rights was not a dictate to the states, but rather a limit on the new federal government. Of course, while the states were free to do as they pleased, the Framers expected that they would already have those protections in place. It was the federal government which was the Framers feared would take away our God-given rights.
What???? I ain't no constitutional scholar but did the SCOTUS recently rule *exactly* the opposite in the Heller case?
Lawyers...enlighten me here.
I hope SCOTUS denies cert. The NRA has been pathetic in educating the public about what the Presser and Miller cases stand for, and has been actively enabling the building of second amendment jurisprudence on a foundation of lies.
Presser argued that he didn't need a parade permit for an armed military parade on public property. He claimed he didn't need a permit because the 2nd amendment protects the right to conduct armed military parades on public property. The Supreme Court said that states can require parade permits as a matter of keeping public order - this isn't a 1st or 2nd amendment issue. If it was a case about RKBA, says SCOTUS, in Presser, the states may NOT prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, and that's the case even if the 2nd amendment did not exist.
What does the NRA say the Presser case propounds? That the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to the states. But, says the NRA, that notion is antiquated. What a pathetically flaccid argument.
The Miller case stands for the proposition that the government may NOT prohibit keep and bear for military arms; in comes the Heller Court, asserting the exact opposite as the holding in Miller (Miller was convicted, the majority says -- FALSE), and the NRA goes "Woo Hoo, We win!"
The Heller case is good law, like Dred Scot is good law. It's there, it's on the books, and it is the law. But it's law built on compound lies, enabled by the NRA.
Which the lovers of judicial legislation must do, because they cannot address the historical facts.
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments..."
Because I don't share your love of centralized power and rule from the bench?
Did you find the words "federal government" somewhere in the hidden penumbras? Read it again: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The states asserted that this right was reserved to the people, not to the states to then allocate out to the people as they see fit.
Did you miss the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right, and this was a recognized legal right before the United States constitution was written? It’s not something that can be taken away by the Federal Government, the States, or anyone else, since it is one of those rights mentioned in the Declaration as inalienable.
Just to bolster your point:
In contrast with the First amendment, which says Congress shall make no law,
the 2nd simply says shall not be infringed. Period.
The 2nd Amendment was simply a clarification that the power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms was NOT delegated to the federal government. Like the rest of the Bill of Rights, it was written to prevent "misconstruction or abuse of its powers" by the federal government.
Not sure whats happening on this thread. Lots of people supporting the normal interpretation of the 2nd amendment. a few here seem to be saying that state has the right to ban guns completely if they want despite the 2nd amendment. Not sure what their real agenda is. Maybe a misguided understanding of the concept of overturning Roe-vs-Wade and leaving that to the states? Apples and oranges there because 2nd is clearly in the constitution, Roe isn’t.
Or the word "states."
Exactly! It doesn't say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed except by the states.
The federal government.
Hard to see how you missed that.
Ok, then you do not think 2nd amendment gives us an individual right to own a gun? Am i correct? Please answer seriously, not with a smart remark, im trying to understand your argument, you can show the same respect.
The USSC could grant cert and then remand back to the 7th Circuit to reconsider in light of the Heller decision. Because the Seventh Circuit decision is inconsistent with a recent 9th Circuit decision, it is very likely that the USSC will take the case.
The NRA wants the courts to void the Constitution. That puts them in the same league as the left.
"Collective v individual" and "applies to the states or not" are two separate arguments. I'll add a third, and it's one that this thread overlooks.
The third argument is that RKBA does not depend on the 2nd amendment. And this is the position that the US Supreme Court took, in Presser.
SCOTUS in Presser v. Illinois: "... the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms ..."
2nd Circuit, in Bach v Pataki: "Presser stands for the proposition that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, whatever else its nature, is a right only against the federal government, not against the states."
What irks the snot out of me is that the NRA does not disagree with the 2nd and 7th Circuit read and application of Presser. The NRA is equally feckless on the read and application of Miller.
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.