Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The 2nd Amendment LAW Library is CLOSED.
Google Cached Links ^ | 02-12-02 | VANNROX post of cached LAW LIBRARY Links via GOOGLE

Posted on 02/12/2002 4:22:44 AM PST by vannrox

FR Note:
One of the problems with the Internet is the ever changing nature of the links and the information. many times I have bookmarked a very interesting site with the hope and the plans to visit it again and continue where I left off. then, only months later I would be surprised to discover that the site has disappeared.

One such site was the 2nd Amendment Library. Not only did it contain a number of amazing links but it also had downloadable publications that were just, absolutely, the best resource on the internet for this kind of information.


Sometimes I would post complete resource data on a response then then be asked "WHY?". Why not just publish a link? the answer is clear. the links are only temporary. If you ever plan on revisiting the FR post in the future, as many of us do, the links are generally worthless. We plan on making free Republic THE resource for Conservative discussion and information. I look back now, and wish, oh do I wish, that I would of downloaded each and every publication available at the 2nd Amendment law Library that I could of. But I didn't.


HOWEVER, all is not lost. I have managed to get a cached backup of the links section of that site. I am trying to obtain all the documents that were once published therein. Here is that linked resource. ENJOY.



Second Amendment

Links

Helpful references, resources and interesting sites


Last updated: November 27, 1999

Reference Materials

Organizations

Firearm related

'Pro-Individual Right'
'Anti-Individual Right'

Non-Organizational


info@2ndlawlib.org

Back | Home ]


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
To: NovemberCharlie
Part 6: U.S. Constitution, Construction, General.


41 posted on 02/12/2002 11:46:31 AM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 7: U.S. Constitution, Preamble, Art 1 § 8 cl. 11, Art 1 8 cl. 15&16, Art 2 § 2 ¶1, Amend. 2, Amend 9.


42 posted on 02/12/2002 11:58:49 AM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
What a wealth of information. Thanks.
43 posted on 02/12/2002 12:04:07 PM PST by BOBTHENAILER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
I'll post the rest of it tonight.
44 posted on 02/12/2002 12:11:11 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Phasma proeliator
PING
45 posted on 02/12/2002 12:15:40 PM PST by jdogbearhunter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
BBB - a Big Bang Bump!
46 posted on 02/12/2002 12:22:24 PM PST by SirAllen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Bookmarked Bump
47 posted on 02/12/2002 12:32:24 PM PST by Cacique
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Wow! Thanks for the resource!
48 posted on 02/12/2002 1:33:15 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Bump!
49 posted on 02/12/2002 1:54:25 PM PST by gdc314
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Tried to go to the Update Link at the start (37 I think) but got a 'no such site' from my browser. :^(


When they took the fourth amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs.
When they took the sixth amendment,
I was quiet because I was innocent.
When they took the second amendment,
I was quiet because I didn't own a gun.
Now they've taken the first amendment,
and I can say nothing about it.


WARNING:
It is dangerous to be right
when your Government is wrong !!


50 posted on 02/12/2002 1:55:37 PM PST by brityank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Thanks, Bump!
51 posted on 02/12/2002 1:58:30 PM PST by Gore_ War_ Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: brityank
Tried to go to the Update Link at the start (37 I think) but got a 'no such site' from my browser. :^(

I know, I mentioned in my original post that the site was gone again.




Part 8: Barron v. Baltimore 1 of 2.


52 posted on 02/12/2002 3:34:54 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 9: Barron v. Baltimore 2 of 2.

The Judgement vs The Historical Context of the Bill of Rights

When a body of free people determine to establish a government over themselves, they each surrender a portion of their individual natural sovereignty to this State which they create. For that State to act against the remaining liberties or rights of the people is masochism, for the State has no existance but as an embodiment of the people, and no powers but from the "Consent of the Governed". The common law rights, however spelled and defined, are those remaining, or residual, liberties and rights which the State shall not invade, for it was created without license to do the people harm. It is not bad poetry to refer to this limit, as the State having a Conscience towards it's people. When the States, acting each as if a person, surrendered part of their individuality and individual sovereignty, wherewith to create a new State, to wit the United States, the Federalists cried "Behold Saint Superman", and the anti-Federalists cried "Behold Frankenstein". "St Frankenstein" is closer to the mark. The cry for a Bill of Rights was a cry to assure that St Frankenstein possessed the same conscience towards the people as did the several States. Therefore, not only did the Bill of Rights apply to the States, it was impossible that it not apply.

This assertion, that the common law rights declared in the Bill of Rights were sure limitations on the local government, because the Bill of Rights was established as limitations on Government, Period, is no strange doctrine. Numerous examples exist where state Courts took guidance from the federal Bill of Rights, or even considered it binding upon them:

And those are just weapons law cases, and just those that could easily be found in Clayton Cramers' In The Defense of Themselves and the State. There are, doubtless, other such decisions, weapons law and otherwise, which are yet to be brought to light.

Defendants consider it noteworthy, One, that in State v. Newsom 5 Iredell 181, 27 N.C. 250, 250-253 (1844), the Court cited Barron v. Baltimore as annulling a Second Amendment claim against a weapon law in a State Court; and Two, the defendant was a Negro. Barron has never been cited by a Court in the interests of upholding rights, but only in pursuit of pretext for denial of rights. We should guess, if the Bill of Rights is inapplicable to the States, so are the judgements of the Supreme Court?-->

The Judgement vs Stare Decisis

Constitutional Authorities, widely recognized and respected as expert on the Constitution, echo the above obvious point: The Bill of Rights affects and binds the States by virtue of the Rights declared therein. In the matter at bar, whether the Second Amendment binds the states, the applicable stare decisis is the intentions in the minds of the authors of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and, (since 1867), the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Judgement vs. the Safety of the United States

How, one should ask, should the Keeping and Bearing of Arms by the People (as in the Second Amendment) afford the United States any security, if the Second Amendment is inapplicable to the States, such that they, the States, may all disarm their whole populations? The Standing Army? Look to The Debates, and count the points of fear of a Standing Army, and the points of Fear for and in behalf of a disarmed populace. The gap between the intentions of the authors of the Bill of Rights, and of the Court in Barron v. Baltimore, is large enough to frustrate the hopes behind the formation of the Union itself. A disarmed populace, dependant on a standing army, would never have succeeded in repulsing the Kings' army in the 1770's, (for the only army was that of the King), nor in resisting them again in the 1810's. They would have been ineffectual against the Mexican authority in Texas or Upper California in the 1840's, as all these militiary actions required armed citizens to to lay aside their work-a-day occupation, and, usually with their own arms, perform the martial work. The Civil War proved the whole point two ways: It cost the North $1,740,036,689 of public debt (as estimated in 1865 in 1865 dollars) to fund a professional army capable of defeating the militias-cum-armies of the Southern States. Had the North rebelled rather than the South, the South could not have interdicted.

Thus,

But only if the Second Amendment is binding upon the states. Elsewise its effect is not guaranteed to exist at all.

The Judgement and the Common Law as being Sacrosanct

It merits belaborment: At the time of the debates in the State conventions on the proposed Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the language of the delegates reflected their understanding that their States were each as bound by the provisions of the Bill of Rights as was the Federal Government. In affixing the Bill of Rights to the Federal Constitution, the State legislatures were doing no more to the Federal government than what was already done to the several States by the people thereof, whether explicitly by a Constitution and Bill of Rights (as in Virginia), or by a Constitution without a bill of rights (as in New York), or in a Commonwealth without a constitution or a bill of rights, (as in Connecticut or Rhode Island). It is accurate to label the Bill of Rights as the People establishing a Bill of Limitations on Government. Not one legislator in any legislature agreed to any provision(s) of the (proposed) Bill of Rights on the condition that the Right or Limit in question did not apply to that State. This was so for ancient rights such as the Right of Keeping and Bearing Arms and Jury Trials in all criminal matters; for new rights wherein the American Common Law differed sufficiently from the English Common Law that the point was not univeral in the States, such as the Rights of Freedom of the Press, Speech, and Religion, the restriction was aimed at the Congress explicitly. The American common law, inter alia the Right to Arms, was Sacrosanct everywhere (if you were a free white man).

For the Supreme Court to show neither conscience nor compassion for the Common Law was repugnant to the Constitution. -->

The Judgement vs The Supreme (and American Common) Law

The common law was the "Supreme Law of the Land" in each State between the time of the Declaration of Independence and the Ratification of the Constitution of the United States. Look upon the debates in each State pertaining to the establishment of a Constitution therein, (and in the legislatures of Rhode island and Connecticut which had no Constitutions in that time period) and see if you can find so much as one word disparaging the English common law among them, or the American common law, which the Americans held to be but a small set of improvements on the English common law. There is not one such disparaging comment. The question addressed in the appeal of Mr. Barron in Barron v Baltimore was whether the State was restrained by the common law rights.

The driving reason for a Federal Bill of Rights (and for the Bills of Rights in the Constitutions of the States that had such bills) was to protect the Rights of the People under the common law from invasion by Government. This acceptance of the common law was universal and (nearly) uniform throughout the States. In short, no State could claim the Bill of Rights affixed to the Federal Constitution had no effect on that State without in those same words declaring that the common law rights were discarded by that State. The doctrine that a declaration of a Right shall not be binding upon an inferior level of government than where that right is declared presumes that, when we wrote the Declaration of Independence, we were just kidding. Every complaint we had against George III, our King, was that he abused our Rights or deserted their protection. "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.." makes plain that any campaign of tyranny (defined as invasion of rights, or abandonment of their protection) is a proper target for bloodshed and rebellion.

Any doubt as to this assertion should be dispelled by reading New York's letters to the Continental Congress declaring the provisional and conditional ratification of the Constitution of the United States, 26 July 1788, from which we excerpt:   "We, the delegates of the people of the state of New York, duly elected and met in Convention, having maturely considered the Constitution for the United States of America, agreed to on the 17th day of September, in the year 1787, by the convention then assembled at Philadelphia, in the common wealth of Pennsylvania, (a copy whereof precedes these presents,) and having also seriously and deliberately consitered the present situation of the United States, --Do declare and make it known,-- -->

  "That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, and that government is instituted by them for their common interest, protection, and security.

  "That the enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, are essential rights, which every government ought to respect and preserve.

  "That the powers of government may be reassumed by the people whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness;   "That the people have an equal, natural, and unalienable right freely and peaceably to exercise their religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no religious sect or society ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. -->

  "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. ((NB, the italic emphasis is original!))   "That standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that at all times the militiary should be under strict subordination to the civil power.

  "That, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only be the civil magistrate, in such manner as the laws may direct.

  "That no person ought to be taken, imprisoned, of disseized of his free hold, or be exiled, or deprived of his privileges, franchises, life, liberty, or property, but by due process of law.

  "That no person ought to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb, for one and the same offence; nor, unless in case of impeachment, be punished more than once for the same offence.

  "That every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to an inquiry into the lawfulness of such restraint, and to a removal thereof if unlawful; and that such inquiry or removal ought not to be denied or delayed, except when, on account of public danger, the Congress shall suspend the privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus.

  "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel or unusual punishments inflicted.

  "That (except in the government of the land and naval forces, and of the militia when in actual service, and in cases of impeachment) a presentment or indictment by a grand jury ought to be observed as a necessary preliminary to the trial of all crimes cognizable by the judiciary of the United States; and such trial should be speedy, public, and by an impartial jury of the county where the crime was committed; and that no person can be found guilty without the unanimous consent of such jury. But in such cases of crimes not committed within any county of any of the United States, and in cases of crimes committed within any county in which a general insurrection may prevail, or which may be in the possession of a foreign enemy, the inquiry and trial may be in such county as the Congress shall by law direct; which county, in the two cases last mentioned, should be as near as conveniently may be to that county in which the crime may have been committed;--and that, in all criminal prosecutions, the accused ought to be informed of the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with his accusers and the witnesses against him, to have the means of producing his witnesses, and the assistance of counsel for his defence; and should not be compelled to give evidence against himself.

  "That the trial by jury, in the extent that it obtains by the common law of England, is one of the greatest securities to the rights of a free people, and ought to remain inviolate.

  "That every freeman has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches and seizures of his person, his papers, or his property; and therefore that all warrants to search suspected places, or seize any freeman, his papers, or property, without information, upon oath or affirmation, of sufficient cause, are grievious and oppressive, and that all general warrants (or such in which the place or person suspected are not particularly designated) are dangerous, and ought not to be granted.

  "That the people have a right peaceably to assemble together to consult for their common good, or to instruct their representatives, and that every person has a right to petition or apply to the legislature for redress of grievances.

  "That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained.

  "That there should be, once in four years, an election of the President and Vice-President, so that no officer, who may be appointed by the Congress to act as President, in case of the removal, death, resignation, or inability, of the Presedent and Vice-President, can in any case continue to set beyond the termination of the period for which the last Presedent and Vice-President were elected.

  "That nothing in the said Constitution is to be construed to prevent the legislature of any state from passing laws at its discretion, from time to time, to divide such state into convenient districts, and to apportion its prepresentatives to and amongst such districts.

  "That the prohibition contained in the said Constitution, against ex post facto laws extends only to laws concerning crimes.

  "That all appeals in causes determinable according to the course of the common law, ought to be by writ of error, and not otherwise.

  "That the judicial power of the United States, in cases in which a state may be a party, does not extend to criminal prosecutions, or to authorize any suit by any person against a state.

  "That the judicial power of the United States, as to controversies between citizens of the same state, claiming lands under grants from different states, is not to be contrued to exted to any other controversies between them, except those which relate to such lands, so claimed, under grants of different states.

  "That the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of the United States, or of any other court to be instituted by the Congress, is not in any case to be increased, enlarged, or extended, by any faction, collusion, or mere suggestion; and that no treaty is to be construed so to operate as to alter the Constitution of any state.

  "Under these impressions, and declaring that the rights aforesaid cannot be abridged or violated, and that the explanations aforesaid are consistent with the said Constitution, and in confidence that the amendments which shall have been proposed to the said Constitution will receive an early and mature consideration,---We, the said delegates, in the name and in the behalf of the people of the state of New York, do, by these presents, assent to and ratify the said Constitution. In full confidence, nevertheless, that, until a convetntion shall be called and convened for the proposing amendments to the said Constitution, the militia of this state will not be continued in service out of this state for a longer term than six weeks, without the consent of the legislature thereof; that the Congress will not make or alter any regulation in this state, respecting the times, places and manner, of holding elections for senators or representatives, unless the legislature of this state shall neglect or refuse to make laws or regulations for the purpose, or from any circumstance be incapable of making the same; and that, in those cases, such power will only be exercised until the legislature of this state shall make provision in the premises; that no excise will be imposed on any article of the growth, production, or manufacture of the United States, or any of them, within this state, ardent spirits excepted; and the Congress will not lay direct taxes within this state, but when the moneys arising from the impost and excise shall be insufficient for the public exigencies, nor then, until Congress shall first have made a requisition upon this state to assess, levy, and pay, the amount of such requisition, made agreeably to the census fixed in the said Constitution, in such way and manner, as the legislature of this state shall judge best; but that in such case, if the state shall neglect or refuse to pay its proportion pursuant to such requisition, then the Congress may assess and levy this state's proportion together with interest, at the rate of six per centum per annum, from the time at which the same was required to be paid.

  "Done in Convention, at Poughkeepsie, in the county of Duchess, in the state of New York, the 26th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1788.

  "By order of the Convention.    George Clinton, President Attested. John M'Kesson, A.B. Banker, Secretaries. " -->

Did New York, in it's Constitutions of 1777 (first) or 1786 (operative at the time of this ratification), claim power from the people to invade the rights of the people? It explicitly did not.

Defendants challenge anybody to find even one legislator, in any ratification debate, stating anything to the effect that these limitations, the Bill of Rights, either as proposed or as ratified, did in no wise tie the hands of the state legislatures, that the states were instead free to forbid one Church and impose another; that they could punish any speech and every publication; that assembly and petition were at the discretion of the (state) Legislature; that no man's guns were secure to him but that the state could claim a monopoly on Force within that state; that Search and Seizure were, throughout the state, at the discretion of the state, whether by general warrant, or without cause or warrant altogether; that Due Process was a right in the federal Courts, but merely a vain wish in the Courts of the state; that compulsory means were the states, and that the defendant was on his bloody own; that in criminal cases Counsel was yours if you could afford it and if the Court allowed, that Juries were at the Courts discretion; that the common law in civil matters was for federal Courts only; and that punishments, bails and fines were the pleasure of the legislature regardless of degrees or methods. Your search will be in vain. The states demanded such limitations on the federal Government as were generally upon them already both as well in states with Bills of Rights, as those with Constitutions that had no Bill of Rights, as in states, both of them, that had not even a Constitution. They were bound by the Bill of Rights not because of the ink on the paper, but because of the common law rights the Bill of Rights arose from.

In conclusion on this point:

We consider Barron v Baltimore to be well proved both historically counterfactual and intrinsically nonsensical. Let it be understood that the Bill of Rights never was irrelevant to the states.

53 posted on 02/12/2002 3:39:32 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: vannrox
Are your fingers cramping yet? :-)
54 posted on 02/12/2002 3:43:38 PM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Pat 10: Dred Scott v. Sandford, Slavery Renamed: The Black Codes


55 posted on 02/12/2002 3:44:16 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 11: U.S. Constitution, Amendment 14 § 1.


56 posted on 02/12/2002 3:50:41 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 12: Congress, the Second Amendment, and the Right of Arms.


57 posted on 02/12/2002 3:53:08 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 12: Constitution of the Sate of New York, 1777, Art. XL, New York State Bill of Rights, New York State Penal Code § 1.05, New York State Penal Code §265.01 ¶ 1.


58 posted on 02/12/2002 4:01:21 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 13: Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542.


59 posted on 02/12/2002 4:13:27 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: NovemberCharlie
Part 13: Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, Beard v. U.S., 159 U.S. 550.


60 posted on 02/12/2002 4:18:37 PM PST by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson