To: ExSoldier; Everybody
RIGHT NOW there is a case that is pending review brought by some well meaning folks in California and represented by a real powerhouse pro 2nd Amendment attorney named Stephen Halbrooke. I don't care how good and how dedicated he is for this issue. The timing is wrong.
-exSoldier-
The "timing" could be perfect.
-- The liberal justices have backed themselves into a 14th amendment 'corner'.
The 14th was ratified, in large part, to defend the RKBAs of freed slaves from the violations of the post war southern states.
-- The 14th told these states in no uncertain terms that they could not infringe upon our individual rights, without due process, - IE without "compelling state interests", ~exactly~ as this liberal court has recently held..
Thus, they are hoisted on their own logic on states prohibiting phony look alike 'assault weapons'.
- And also on the 14ths equal protection/immunity clauses..
The time is ripe, imo. Read this:
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments: The Framers' Intent and Supreme Court Jurisprudence
Address:
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/saf-hal.html 335 -tpaine-
_____________________________________
I can't agree. Where in the 14th Amendment does it give a rational excuse for abortion? Where does it mention abortion at all? Yet this is the primary Amendment used to justify the Roe v. Wade atrocity.
-ExS-
Abortion, like sex, is protected by our general unenumerated rights. -- Words like Life/Liberty/Property, cover a lot of specific rights.
Like a right to be left alone in the privacy of your bedroom, or your gunroom.
______________________________________
Under the Full Faith and Credit clause, CCW reciprocity should be the law of the land in every state and territory in the country. But that's not the way it works, is it? In fact, as we have so trustingly accepted ever since 1803 with Marbury v. Madison, the US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means. In which case we are screwed, royally.
-ExS-
Equal protection under the 14th will also apply to CCW.
And, - you're dead wrong on the Marbury decision, -- the last sentence of which says that laws repugnant to our constitution are void.
This hardly establishes that the "US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means."
Marbury established the doctrine of Judicial Review--which was foreign to the Constitution.
That establishment led to the JudRev of ALL laws (through the 14th) passed by States, in seeming violation of the 9th Amendment.
Marbury has been castigated as a horrendous mistake by a number of informed lawyers of the conservative (not Libertarian) stripe.
"This hardly establishes that the "US Constitution means whatever the currently sitting court thinks it means."It doesn't matter. This goes waaaaaay beyond everything you've said. The fact of the matter remains that this is a LIBERAL...GLOBALIST court. My Lord, four of them are members of the Council on Foreign Relations! This is the best shot the globalists will ever have to destroy the 2nd Amendment. Have you read what CFR member Breyer just said about the Constitution? Do you think CFR members Ginsburg, O'Connor, and Stevens think any differently?
Stop thinking of these people like they're interested in maintaining the sovereignty of these United States! The 2nd Amendment and the 100 million lawful gunowners it protects is the final remaining obstacle to some form of global government. Get rid of the 2nd Amendment, pass the incremental laws on registration and eventual confiscation and it's all over.
Look don't get me wrong: Your arguments are well ordered, cogent, logical and thought provoking. They will appeal to the strict constructionists and freedom loving conservatives on the court, that is Scalia and Thomas will love them. But they won't matter in the end. In this most important of all matters, I think even the vote of Rhendquist may be in doubt. He's not CFR, but he didn't get to where he is by not knowing the music and the musicians...and the name of the tune. We need to get a few more Scalias and to do that we conservatives need a veto, and filibuster proof US Senate before we can begin to even remotely relax. Until then, we have to walk carefully and choose our battles with great care and careful timing.