Posted on 09/08/2009 11:08:57 AM PDT by Still Thinking
Otis McDonald wore an Army uniform and served with distinction. He then moved home to Chicago were he began a family. Meanwhile, he busied himself during the days with work at his local union. Eventually, he led the effort to integrate his union and ended up as president of the union.
In recent years, McDonald looked around Chicago and decided that he could do something about the shadowy areas of the city outside the bright lights. He went into impoverished, crime-riddled neighborhoods as a community activist. Yet his work inevitably meant he crossed paths with shady characters — drug dealers and gang leaders. Justifiably, he feared for his safety. And he wanted a gun.
Yet the city of Chicago disagreed. A city ordinance there essentially prohibits McDonald — or any resident — from owning a handgun.
McDonald was encouraged last year when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller. In that ruling, the court essentially struck down the famous gun ban in the nation’s capital. In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said a review of "founding-era sources" convinced the court that the term 'bear arms' was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.
Yet later, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that it’s still unclear whether this meant that states have to respect the right to keep and bear arms. Over the years, the courts have used a variety of standards to determine whether particular rights applied against the states, as well as the federal government.
Thomas Jefferson wrote "A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
(Excerpt) Read more at star-telegram.com ...
Amazingly though, they have never used a standard as straightforward as "Congress shall make no law" applies to the federal government while "right of the people ... shall not be infringed" applies to all levels of government. That would seem too easy.
The law can be an ass, but the justices cannot be allowed to be asses.
I know. And lead to a result they don’t like.
Yeah, inventing law from the bench would be easy.
"The question of their application to States is not left to construction. It is averred in positive words. If the original Constitution, in the ninth and tenth sections of the first article, draws this plain and marked line of discrimination between the limitations it imposes on the powers of the General Government and on those of the State; if, in every inhibition intended to act on State power, words are employed which directly express that intent; some strong reason must be assigned for departing from this safe and judicious course in framing the amendments before that departure can be assumed. We search in vain for that reason."Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)
So if handguns are illegal in Chicago, should I assume all the cops and all the criminals are walking around with rifles??
Any judge that rules against the God-given right to keep and bear arms has no place on the bench. Any senator who votes to confirm such a judge has no place in any elected office.
The 9th and 10th are irrelevant to the 2d
Bump to that.
If a state a passes a law that could even remotely be interpreted as keeping minorities from voting, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. If a state passes a law that could even remotely be interpreted as restricting a woman’s “right” to an abortion, it will be struck down by the Supreme Court. But a state or local government can pass a law that makes “keeping and bearing arms” illegal, and that is fine and dandy. I’ve never been able to rationalize this.
“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.”
Police powers are state powers.
What does the 2d amendment have to do with police powers? Police powers are as irrelevant to the 2d as are the 9th and 10th.
Nothing. It doesn't apply to the states.
If we are forced to be stuck with the unconstitutional NICS system to exercise one right if we choose to buy from a dealer, then they should use the NICS system to pre-screen anyone who wants to vote.
After all, there is no “right” to vote in the federal constitution and felons are prohibited from voting by federal law. If a NICS check can be used to exercise a genuine right, it can be used for voting in federal elections.
Amendment 15
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
You, my friend, are a genius! In fact, that might be a doorway to getting them out of our lives. You know how a government bureaucracy, once spawned from the slime, refuses to acknowledge that it’s outlived its usefulness (as if it ever had any). Well, this way, all the bureaucrats get to keep their jobs, just running NICS on voters instead of gun buyers.
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.