Posted on 07/14/2009 7:06:47 AM PDT by pabianice
Mentioned "hunting" and "target practice" as legitimate uses for a gun, as long as the state decides you can have one. Not one word on self-defense.
Does NOT apply to the STATES????? She has NEVER ACTUALLY read ANY historical documents.
I submitt the following:
The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the Amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:
“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.”
This version was transmitted to the states for ratification.
On December 15, 1791, the Virginia General Assembly ratified the Bill of Rights, thereby achieving the ratification of three-fourths of the states needed to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution.
Now let’s examine the wording of the “visible text” of some of the state ratifications:
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state (1818).
Kentucky: [T]he right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1792).
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence (1780).4
North Carolina: [T]he people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).
Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power (1776).
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned (1790).
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (1842).
Tennessee: [T]he freemen of this State have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence (1796).
Vermont: [T]he people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State — and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power (1777).
Now for the application of some common sense: If ANY of these state ratifications had contained wording CONTRARY to the intent of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, would we not have “visible text” rebukes from the federal government and the founding fathers? They DO NOT EXIST because, the state wording matched EXACTLY with the intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Can't say I disagree with you on that, but to pretend that a half century of jurisprudence doesn't exist is just sticking your fingers in your ears and going "la-la-la."
I'm not inventing any facts, you just don't like them. That's different.
RE: “I’ve got Boxer and Feinstein, but I still harass them daily.......................”
*********
Yep, the wicked sisters from CA — I harass them often as well; surprised they haven’t sent their goons for me yet!
Ah, I always assumed that states rights were people’s rights.
I guess I still have much to learn.
You’re correct that the 2nd Amendment (and the Bill of Rights as a whole) did not apply against the states when they were originally adopted. But, let’s see, did anything happen since Barron v. Baltimore was decided in 1833? Oh, the Civil War, that’s right. And after the Civil War Congress adopted (wait for it) The Civil War Amendments, including the 14th Amendment, an amendment whose author, Congressman John Bingham (R-OH), specifically declared was meant to incorporate against the states the Bill of Rights (as well as the fundamental rights enunciated by Justice Bushrod Washington in Corfield v. Coryell). While the Supreme Court initially refused to incorporate the Bill of Rights against the states (in The Slaughterhouse Cases, 1873, which basically read the 14th Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause out of the Constitution), it began the process of “selective incorporation” against the states of almost all of the clauses in the bill of Rights commencing in 1897 but not picking up speed until the 1960s. Judge Sotomayor’s citation of pre-1897 cases for the proposition that the 2nd Amendment should not apply against the states is risible, given that *of course* the Supreme Court held back then that the 2nd Amendment only applied against the federal government, since back then none of the Bill of Rights had been incorporated against the states.
Yea, that would make sense. I wonder how many would resist and fight back? Not many I think.
Actually, given the benefit of hindsight, my answer is "no."
I think we'd be better off if the Heller dissent had carried the day, too.
-- Even with these protections, we are heading down a dangerous path. --
"These protections" have been watered down. I don't see any significant risk of armed revolution. All that's going to happen is the balance between freedom and regulation will settle out toward "Euro" or "Sharia." The people won't fight for freedom - those days are gone forever. The American experiment ran its course.
Not where it amends the Constitution by decree.
to pretend that a half century of jurisprudence doesn't exist
Nowhere in that "jurisprudence" has the Second Amendment been amended so as to be misapplied to the states.
The 2d amendment is in the bill of rights. If that’s “adjustable for the states”, then so is the 1st amendment.
I haven’t the foggiest idea how she arrived at that conclusion and why the same logic doesn’t apply to all rights.
Does she believe the First Amendment applies to the states? The first fovewords of the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law,” which clearly define it’s scope, yet it’s held to protect against infringements on free speech and religion by any government entity. Why? If she wants to claim that the 14th Amendment extends it to the entire government of every state, then why doesn’t the 14th Amendment extend the 2nd Amendment, which has no scope qualifiers?
And I’ll ask the question, yet again...
How is it that “the People” referred to in the 2nd Amendment are somehow different than “the People” in the 1st, 4th, 6th, and 10th Amendments?
Well I’m a scholar because I say so too. And I say that Obama and his negative rights are a threat to the freedom and liberty of us all.
Sotomayor also states that logic and the U.S. Constitution does not apply to her.
here’s how I look at it...when it comes down to left vs. patriot...who has the guns?
We do!
Non sequitur.
the 14th Amendment, an amendment whose author, Congressman John Bingham (R-OH), specifically declared was meant to incorporate against the states the Bill of Rights
And as Charles Fairman observed, what "Bingham said in 1871 formed no part whatsoever of the facts that produced the Fourteenth Amendment...He had made history, but his afterthought should not be allowed to remake it."
Judicial legislation.
My point of view is that armed revolution won't happen in the USA; so the "lots of bloodshed" that is inevitable in armed revolution is not a significant risk.
I don't see any way for the various governments to disarm the public in the next 10 years, but I think it's in the cards in the next 50-70. It took about 70 years to rewrite the Miller decision, thereby converting what had been a judicial finding of "unconstitutional federal law in light of the 2nd" to "perfectly constitutional."
Once the 2nd has been incorporated, the public will more naturally look to uniformity of gun regulation, promulgated by the feds (see, e.g., gun-free school zones, federalized); with encroachment happening at whatever pace the public opinion tolerates. There is no need for a direct ban, see the erosion of possession in NYC, Massachusetts, and other states for models.
The NRA is taking a wait and see approach to her.
Not according to the last article I read in Rifleman. Where do you get your info that they are waiting to see?
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.