Posted on 03/02/2010 6:30:33 PM PST by Steelfish
if i feared the dickheads in office id wouldve not replied instead I added my name to yer rant...
just havin a lil fun at bambams expense too...
The term “national right” is meaningless. The real question is WHO is prohibited from infringing the right to bear arms. It was originally understood that the Bill of Rights only prohibited the Federal Government from infringing the rights contained in the Bill of Rights.
The Framers were concerned that a Federal Government would run roughshod over local (individual State) concerns, and wanted to restrain the Feds from doing so. They were not particularly concerned about restraining THEIR OWN STATES from infringing on individual rights.
This gradually shifted after the Civil War, when it was determined, on a right-by-right basis, over many decades, that the prohibition against infringement of those rights applied against the States and subdivisions of States in addition to the Feds. The key to including States in the prohibition was the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, one of the Civil War amendments.
The ONLY reason why ANY right in the Bill of Rights is protected from State (as opposed to Federal) infringement is because there was a Supreme Court case that said so — based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In order to apply the Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizure against the States, it took two tries. In Weeks v. Colorado, 1949, the Court ruled that the Constitution did NOT apply to the States, at least not in all instances. This was reversed in Mapp v. Ohio, 1961.
There has never been a case where the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd Amendment, THROUGH the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, applies to the States. The ruling in Heller, which went against Washington DC, only applied to the Feds — establishing that the right to bear arms was a personal right.
You can bet that the NRA, or whoever was behind the Heller suit, sued the Feds first, as a strategic decision to establish the “individual right” precedent, as “Step ONe” of a two step stragegy, and when they had established that right under the Constitution, then take “Step Two” — extend the right to prohbit State action as well.
We are now in Step Two.
Please accept my apology. I am used to most people trying to get others to moderate their tone and that is the last thing I plan to do until our Constitution is reestablished as the law of the land and BO is out of office.
'we all must hang together, or we shall surely hang separately'...
GREAT line - Love it.
Good story and exactly correct. Those were dark days. I was out of the country when they snatched Elian and wondered what happened to America.
We’re still not out of the woods yet. Look at the headline: “Justices Signal They’re Ready To Make Gun Ownership A National Right”
Our rights come from the Justices of the SCOTUS?
We need a serious crash course in liberty, the Constitution and natural rights in this country. Schoolkids just aren’t getting it.
Can’t wait for the first ditz politician or reporter to equate the 2nd Amendment to mandatory health coverage.
I carry a 1911
Nam Vet
Would you care to post a list of what crimes might be considered punishable?
Is or would simply possessing a gun be punishable?
How about carrying one in your coat pocket?
What about a gun in your car?
Be careful what you ask for, you may just get it!
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.