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.
It was written to control the federal government not the states.
The Bill of Rights was written to control the federal govenment not state governments. Later amendment addressed different concerns.
Anti-Federalist feared the federal government would be tyrannical if it had a standing army. Hence, state militias were a major component of the federal military structure. They were a resource and a check so the Second amendment was to reassure that the “Congress” explicitly identified shall pass no laws etc.
It isn’t just the historical record which confirms this but the very structure of the amendment itself.
lets see how “support anyone” NRA reacts to this.....you can not trust rats EVER and maybe some day they’ll learn that....
It is where the 14th amendment came from.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
It should also be noted that, throughout Federalist 42, Madison repeatedly used the word “privileges” interchangeably with the word “rights.”
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa42.htm
The Powers Conferred by the Constitution Further Considered
When was the 14th amendment repealed?
Late to this thread but,No they are not taking a wait and see approach.
The fourteenth amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights of which I was speaking.
It was explicit in its coverage and applicability to the states for it was the slave states which had laws denying equal rights. Well, they all did to some extent as regard a slave I suppose one must say. At any rate it was intended that the 14th curb the states wrt to ex-slaves.
The argument that the 14th overruled Barron and made all the BoR apply to the state is not contradicted by what I said about the original intention of the B of R. But I don’t believe that incorporation has been extended to the 2d by the Supreme Court.
In any case the language of the Second makes it easy to argue about the intention since it could have been worded much less obscurely had there been no need to base it on militia power.
Ironically, Illinois has explicitly defined the “militia” as the whole able bodied adult population. This has not stopped Chicago from banning handguns, unfortunately.
I am not sure I get your point. How does that dicussion of federal power affect my initial point wrt to the Second?
The Federalist was written prior to the Bill of Rights and does not reference it.
At ratification most states did not even have Bills of Rights.
The Fourteenth would be violated wrt gun ownership should a state decide a certain class of citizen could not own guns while others were not affected.
Something on the order of saying No Black shall own a gun although of course that did not stop Southern states from doing just that after the CW.
Or no Irishman or Republican.
Either we are all citizens of the United States or we are not.
The judges are fooling themselves if they think they can pick and choose which inalienable GOD given Rights apply and which do not.
And if that is the decision lies solely in the hands of the state then why have the U.S. Supreme Court decide.
Why not the state.
Something on the order of saying No Black shall own a gun although of course that did not stop Southern states from doing just that after the CW.
Or no Irishman or Republican”
You are confusing the Equal protection clause:
Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
With the Citizen Clause:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
The 14th amendment section 1 contains four clauses:
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
2. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
3 Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
4. Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
We constantly argue that the original intent is critical to interpreting the Constitution and, in that light, the Fourteenth was not intended to be used as widely as it has since adopted.
I am not aware that this amendment was intended to do more than assure the Freedmen were not to be denied their legitimate rights as citizens by state law.
If we expand its scope beyond its intent are we not on a slippery slope? It has already been used to claim that children born of illegal alien parents within the US are US citizens. That was never its intent, either.
As the constitution was designed most domestic law impacting citizens was to be under state jurisidiction. It never intended to deny states the right to write law respecting firearms or arms in general.
Do we really want to encourage expanded federal law making under the aegis of the Fourteenth amendment?
Concerning the interchangeably of privileges and rights.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
The militia is the natural defense of a free country
against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections,
and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against
sound policy for a free people to keep up large military
establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both
from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended,
and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and
unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample
upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the
palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers
a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power
of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful
in the first instance, enable the people to resist and
triumph over them.
By your logic the states could re-institute slavery.
On January 30, 1871, the House Judiciary Committee, lead by John Bingham, released a House Report No. 22, authored by Bingham himself, in response to a petition by Mrs. Victoria C. Woodhull and interpreted the Fourteenth’s privileges and immunities this way:
“The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The Fourteenth Amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for the enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. It had been judicially determined that the first Eight Amendments of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.2”
http://federalistblog.us/mt/articles/14th_dummy_guide.htm
The useful idiots on this thread do.
Just look at what the federal judiciary did with the 1st Amendment once they nationalized it. Ten Commandments pulled off local courthouse walls, mangers removed from town squares by force, communities forced to permit pornographers and strip joints, prayed silenced in the local public schools and so on.
No need to make a law.
In fact why confuse the issue.
We talking about and Enumerated RIGHT.
From the 10th.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
From the Second:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
A power delegated to the United States by the Constitution, specifically the 2nd amendment.
Are you saying the 10th was repealed as well?
I am a citizen of The United States.
The founding Fathers knew exactly what they were writing.
They talked about armed revolutions and and armed citizen to prevent a tyrannical government gone wrong from trampling upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to
keep and bear arms has justly been considered.
I do not need another law to teach me history.
What is your definition of:
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."
Useful Idiot's that agree with Sotomayer?
I am arguing in favor of the U.S. Constitution, 2nd amendment specifically The Right to bear arms. And you
think a State cant strip you of this right?
Who is the Idiot fool?
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.