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.
Throughout most of American history gun control laws were openly used as a method of keeping blacks and Hispanics ”in their place”, and to quiet the fears of the white population. For decades, "gun-control" helped keep black people defenseless against lynching. Between 1882 and 1968, 3,446 blacks were murdered in the U.S. by lynching. More recently gun control laws were also used against other “suspect” groups like Catholics and Jews.
Today it is not politically correct to openly advocate keeping suspect groups “in their place”. Laws are now written to appear neutral. The racists and elitists camouflage their intent while accomplishing the same goal. Today it isn’t just Blacks, Jews, Catholics and other “undesirable” groups the wish to strip of their human rights. They want to strip anyone who isn’t politically powerful, or rich, or famous of his human rights.
Sotomayor, the racist judge being considered to become the SECOND Hispanic to become a Supreme Court justice, supports these racist, elitist laws. She is hostile to civil rights as well as the concept of equal treatment for all citizens. Her view that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the States is the same view held by the Florida Supreme Court in 1941.
“I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers and to thereby reduce the unlawful homicides that were prevalent in turpentine and saw-mill camps and to give the white citizens in sparsely settled areas a better feeling of security. The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied." - Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (Fla. 1941)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haljuris.html#h4
THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECOND
AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS
C. The Fourteenth Amendment
The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal—the fourteenth amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), in referring to “the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and to bear arms ...”[134] argued that the adoption of the fourteenth amendment was necessary to protect these rights against state legislation. “The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees.”[135]
The fourteenth amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the objectives of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Representative George W. Julian (R., Ind.) noted that the Act:
is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments.... Cunning legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore slavery in fact.[136]
It is hardly surprising that the arms question was viewed as part of a partisan struggle: “As you once needed the muskets of the colored persons, so now you need their votes,” explained Senator Sumner to his fellow Republicans in support of black suffrage in the District of Columbia.[137] At the opposite extreme, Representative Michael C. Kerr (D., Ind.), an opponent of black suffrage and of the fourteenth amendment, attacked a military ordinance in Alabama that set up a volunteer militia of all males between ages 18 and 45 “without regard to race or color” on these grounds:(p.25)
Of whom will that militia consist? Mr. Speaker, it will consist only of the black men of Alabama. The white men will not degrade themselves by going into the ranks and becoming a part of the militia of the State with negroes.... Are the civil laws of Alabama to be enforced by this negro militia? Are white men to be disarmed by them?[138]
Kerr predicted that the disfranchisement of white voters and the above military measure would result in “a war of races.”[139]
Useful idiots that hate the Constitution, despise original intent, crave centralized power and cheer for judicial activism. Look in a mirror.
Equal protection. Nice foot shot.
Not so.
Your blog is wrong.
Bingham clearly intended to have the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States.
Just like Kelo vs. City of New London the SCOTUS got it wrong.
Despite Bingham’s intention that the 14th Amendment apply the first eight Amendments of the Bill of Rights to the States, the U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined to interpret it that way. In the 1947 case of Adamson v. California, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black argued in his dissent that the framers’ intent should control the Court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and he attached a lengthy appendix that quoted extensively from Bingham’s congressional testimony.
. . it is . . . clear by every construction of the Constitution, its continued construction, legislative, executive and judicial, that these great provisions of the Constitution, this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States. The House knows, the country knows . . . , that the legislative, executive and judicial officers of eleven States within this Union, within the last five years, have utterly disregarded the behest.
BLACK, J., Dissenting Opinion
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
332 U.S. 46
Adamson v. California
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0332_0046_ZD.html
Let's not look at Bingham's actual words. Let's go by dicta in a losing dissenting opinion by a hardcore leftist and former Ku Klux Klan member.
Can't discuss constitutional interpretations with out
being un-courteous and rude?
That's because I will win the argument hands down based on the facts.
You must resort to slander.
Are you a drunk?
You're delusional.
You must resort to slander. Are you a drunk?
And a flaming hypocrite.
is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South. Florida makes it a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons without a license to do so from a probate judge, and the punishment of the offense is whipping and the pillory. South Carolina has the same enactments.... Cunning legislative devices are being invented in most of the States to restore slavery in fact.[136]
It is hardly surprising that the arms question was viewed as part of a partisan struggle: “As you once needed the muskets of the colored persons, so now you need their votes,” explained Senator Sumner to his fellow Republicans in support of black suffrage in the District of Columbia.[137] At the opposite extreme, Representative Michael C. Kerr (D., Ind.), an opponent of black suffrage and of the fourteenth amendment, attacked a military ordinance in Alabama that set up a volunteer militia of all males between ages 18 and 45 “without regard to race or color” on these grounds:(p.25)
Well, Lets have a look at Binghams actual words...
CONG. GLOBE, 37th Cong., 2d Sess. 1639 (1862). Bingham states that among the privileges and immunities protected by Article IV, Section 2 were the rights to freedom of speech, press, conscience, assembly, trial by jury, and the right to bear arms.
Speech of Hon. John A. Bingham at Belpre, Ohio, September 14, 1871, supra note 70
John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
On January 25, 1866, two years before the adoption of the
Fourteenth Amendment, Bingham made clear his belief that
the federal government should be empowered to enforce the
Bill of Rights against the states. Bingham spoke in general
terms about what was to become the Fourteenth Amendment,
then pending before the Joint Committee on Reconstruction.
He said it was a [Page 72] "general"
amendment which would give Congress the express power to
enforce "the rights which were guarantied [sic] ...
from the beginning, but which guarantee has unhappily
been disregarded by more than one State of this
Union, ... simply because of a want of power in Congress to
enforce that guarantee."
CONG. GLOBE, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 429 (Jan. 25, 1866).
Shall we continue?
Just how stupid do you want to look?
Precisely. The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee EQUAL treatment, regardless of race.
Nice foot shot.
And the Bill of Right was intended and universally understood from the beginning NOT to guarantee any immunity from state laws.
Another great foot shot.
You're doing a bang up job of shooting down your own position.
Just how stupid do you want to look?
You're setting the bar.
OK, explain what they are doing? I don't count saying she is “troubling” as doing anything.
“She’s correct,”
I can’t believe this is even an issue on this site. The Second Amendment was enacted as a prohibition against the federal government taking away the right of the people to keep and bare arms. It had nothing to do with the states, which created the federal government. Gun rights in the states are governed by state constitutions and state laws.
This is a very basic conservative position. It is also sometimes called “Fedralism.”
LOL. Everything is an issue on this site.
What amazes me is the tenacity with which people insist that the RKBA is only found in the 2nd amendment, and that if the 2nd amendment vanishes, so does the RKBA. Absolute conflation of RKBA and 2nd amendment.
How the pending cert petitions play out will be interesting. I'm hoping the 9th Circuit rewrites Nordyke in order to resolve the current conflict between the Circuits, and SCOTUS denies cert to the NRA/Chicago/Maloney/Nordyke petitions.
Tell me some NEWS.
While the first paragraph of your post was exemplery it appears insanity erupted in your last sentence. My “logic” implies nothing of the sort particularly since it has been made impossible to have slavery by amendment.
Are you saying we will amend the Constitution again allowing the re-establishment of slavery? That is the only way it would again be legal.
All well and good but none of that addresses the intent of the 14th. It was not intended to lead to uniform laws in all states. Not with respect to firearms nor marriage laws nor to make babies of illegals American citizens.
Personnally I would prefer living under the firearm laws of the least restrictive state in the Union rather than Illinois but that ain’t going to happen unless I move.
What practical impact would the incorportation of the 2d as respects gun laws have? Federal law would still preempt state.
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.