Posted on 07/16/2004 8:59:00 AM PDT by neverdem
We "get" it. We've "gotten" it since the mid-1700's. It is our government, and their enablers, that don't "get" it.
Title 10, Sec. 311 is the modern-day descendant of the 1792 Militia Act, which discussed the "militia" as almost all of us understand it to be (i.e. all able-bodied males, or at least those of us between 17 and 45). There is, to my knowledge, no such thing as the "federal militia."
I hope you are not asking me to explain the "common sense" behind BAFT regulation! I am not up to that. I am not even sure God could figure it out.
Click here for definition of Destructive Device
As you can see from the definition, for some reason shotguns don't count. Go figure.
Refreshing to see a ghost from the past. There be too few. Heh.
That's not the way I read it:
Sec. 6.
"No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
There are many weapons that are not suitable for the purposes stated in your state constitution. Just be thankful you don't live in Illinois.
The federal laws you mentioned, and others, were written under the Commerce Clause to control the international and interstate shipment of certain weapons. The individual states were having problems enforcing their own laws with these weapons flooding in. They are constitutional and, as such, apply to the states.
Not one of these statutes were challenged as violating the second amendment (The 1994 AWB was challenged by Navegar and Penn Arms, but as a constitutional violation of the Commerce Clause, not the second amendment).
So, do these federal statutes violate the second amendment? Who knows?
"the people are nuts to allow even the state to dictate the terms of engagement where life and liberties are at stake"
I disagree. After all, this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Your state decides. If your state wants concealed carry, fine. If another state doesn't, that's fine too. Your state wants "assault-style" weapons, fine. California doesn't? Screw 'em.
If the RKBA is an absolute burning issue with you, the FF figured there would be a state right up your alley. Move to it.
Now, here's what's going to be interesting -- and you heard it from robertpaulsen first. Watch what happens when the 1994 federal AWB expires, and it will expire. Watch how many states rush to pass their own AWB to fill the gap. You say it's the big bad federal government banning guns via the AWB? You ain't seen nothing yet.
Each state has its own definition of a militia.
To make sure that the chuckleheads in the state courts knew that "This MEANS YOU." Seriously, discussions of the 14th Amendment are important, and require quite a bit more bandwidth than I will be able to supply here. Believe me when I say that I sure could find a way to make the BOR apply to the states without the 14th Amendment (Supremacy Clause and various other parts of the Constitution). After consideration, I just don't believe that to be the intent of the founders. Subsequent to the 14th Amendment, no doubt in my mind whatsoever. I only wish that judges would act that way. They do not, and we now have a mess called "partial incorporation" on our hands. I do note the difference between a) the plain language of the document b) the intent of the founders (or in the case of amendments the Senate) and c) how judges actually rule in the case law.
Well, there you go.
And no mattter where you go .... there you are.
I looked up the People's Republic of Kalifornia's definitions of Destructive Device out of curiosity.
More restrictive California definition of destructive device
While this makes no sense, it is the law.
Just when I finally thought we were getting through to you, you fall of the wagon.
And the Press today trumpets "Bush LIED". Freedom of the Press bubba.
Bumpkin
Securing freedom isn't about defending yourself against muggers, or your home against burglars, it is about defending your nation against invaders from without and tyrants from within.
Far be it for a heavy left shill like Tribe to take a public stand on the clear meaning and ineluctable logical symmetry of the Second Amendment. When you consider that he refused ever to consider the primary purpose of the Amendment, the security of a FREE state, he gets a failing mark in his understanding of the English language as well as Constitutional History. I am tired of seeing his weak and intentionally incomplete conclusions trotted out as a correct analysis of the issue by an intellectually honest liberal. There is no such thing. They are all quislings and liars. BTW, if Tribe believed in freedom under the Constitution he would not have been down in Florida trying to help the Goron hijack the election. And given the primary purpose of the Amendment, the word "arms" means what it says, no more, no less.
The next clause goes on to clarify:
"No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
Concerning concealed carry, it has always been my contention that the "but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons" clause was another of stating the obvious, that the state does not have the power to permit -- or not permit -- the carrying of concealed weapons, as that would be assuming powers it did not have. It would be passing a law that would abridge the right of a Citizen to keep and bear arms, concealed or otherwise. An abridgement, which it knew it couldn't do. If the state can grant Citizens the right to carry concealed, it can also take away the right to carry concealed. So it excused itself from having to make the decision by adding that clause.
The final clause concerning municipalities or counties also prevents those political entities from restricting carry, concealed or otherwise. That's the only way I can make sense out of the entire Article II, Section 6.
If there is any obfuscation or confusion with the Article, it must lie at the feet of the writers who may have had a rascist bent and wanted the Article to be subject to interpretation either way, according to what 'incident' presented itself at any given time.
"There are many weapons that are not suitable for the purposes stated in your state constitution. Just be thankful you don't live in Illinois.
I lived in Illinois many years and never had a problem. The laws are written for the lawless. I was not a lawless person, nor am I today.
Who is to judge what kind of weapons are suitable for my purpose? Me and me alone. For self-defense, I will allow myself the necessity to use a weapon superior to any that might be used against me. After all, that's what self-defense is all about. It's not about battling for my life on an equal playing field. It's about surviving in the face of peril and the odds are going to be in my favor.
Do you see the logic and necessity for that?
"So, do these federal statutes violate the second amendment? Who knows?"
So what's your opinion? Is a rose still a rose if called by any other name?
""the people are nuts to allow even the state to dictate the terms of engagement where life and liberties are at stake""
"I disagree. After all, this is exactly what the Founding Fathers had in mind."
Doubt it very much. Otherwise we would have not objected to the redcoats trying to confiscate our powder. Why would they turn right around after winning the right to keep their powder and put it back under control of another government? Doesn't make sense. The Founders, more than anyone, knew governments of any kind had a built-in tendency to lean towards tyranny in time. That's another reason they made mention of it and took precautions to reserve for the people the right to change government.
"Watch how many states rush to pass their own AWB to fill the gap. You say it's the big bad federal government banning guns via the AWB? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Not looking forward to it.
Thanks for the look at LaLaLand!
Click here for federal destructive device definition
This has the punctuation right, so that you can see that a poison gas bomb is a destructive device, even if it has only 3 ounces of propellant.
Again, please don't ask me to try to make sense of these federal laws.
I know what I am talking about.
I have oral history handed down to me from my forefathers generations ago.
I present my case by family history and historical precedent for the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
(7 of my family fought on Breed's Hill (Bunker Hill)
My family has had weapons and firearms since 1620, including muskets, blunderbusses, rifled muskets, rifles, civil war rifles, rifles brought home from WWI, WWII, KOREA and Vietnam, including Enfields, British sniper rifles, M-1 carbines, German lugers, and AK47's right off the plane from San Francisco from Saigon in 1975. My family has fought in the New England Indian Wars, Queen Ann's War, Fort St. Frederic (Fort Crown Point), Fort Ticonderoga, French and Indian War, Battle of Bloody Pond, Starks Rangers, Whitcombs Rangers, Green Mountain Boys, Bunker Hill, Battle of Bennington, Saratoga II, Connecticut British raid, War of 1812 Battle of Plattsburg, Civil War at Gettysburg- New York 5th Cavalry (Hammond's 5th New York Troopers charging Jeb Stuart's Confederate Cavalry) (using our own Morgan chargers -we still breed them), including:
* 2nd NY Cavalry
* 5th NY Cavalry
* 2nd NY Infantry
* 9th NY Infantry
* 13th NY Infantry
* 34th NY Infantry
* 65th NY Infantry
* 76th NY Infantry
* 83rd NY Infantry
* 96th NY Infantry
* 118th NY Infantry
* 13th NY Artillery
* 16th NY Artillery
* 23rd NY Artillery
* 62nd NY Zouaves
* 1st VT Cavalry
* 11th VT Infantry
* 14th VT Infantry
* 50th OH Infantry
* 20th WI Infantry\
then
* 12th US Infantry, WW1, WWII North Africa Tunisia Theatre, and Germany, Korea MIA's, Grenada, Vietnam Afghanistan and Iraq.
Since 1620, my family knows possession of arms was antecedent to the U.S. constitution; everyone of my family had arms under Dutch, British and French rule;
Even my maternal relatives, Mohawks, have borne arms on and off the reservation guaranteed by British treaty of 1763 and numerous U.S, Govt treaties unbroken to this very day.
If U.S. govt guarantees my cousins on the reservation to bear arms FOREVER, so much the more are we all Americans from our foundation exercising that right from 1620 in New England and New York and even earlier (1607, and even earlier in the Northern French colonies in New England and New York) in the other colonies before the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is a CONFIRMATION and AFFIRMATION of pre-existing conditions, practices and rights of the people dating back to 1066 Magna Carta and brought to our shores by my ancestors from England. (In 1051, in England, Edward the Confessor, raised an army of his own and, since he was king and had the power of mobilizing the fyrd, or NATIONAL MILITIA; most of the other English nobles, who were jealous of Godwin's power, sided with Edward.)
The U.S. Constitution is not a proposal, but an affirmation, a WITNESS to practices back to our ancestors landing here.
The 13 Colonies' Charters and Constitutions mostly pre-dated the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Constitution drew upon them for the Bill of Rights.
The rights against the English King obtained in 1066 were re-affirmed by rightful LEGAL force of arms by the PEOPLE in 1775 at Concord on the Green and postulated as fact and rights affirmed by our founding Fathers in tHe U.S. Constitution.
(http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/featured_documents/magna_carta/)
COMMON LAW DERIVED FROM MAGNA CARTA:
New Jersey Constitution, 1776
And whereas, in the present deplorable situation of these
COLONIES, exposed to the fury of a cruel and relentless enemy,
some form of government is absolutely necessary, not only for the
preservation of good order, but also the more effectually TO UNITE THE PEOPLE,
and enable them to exert THEIR WHOLE FORCE in their
own necessary defence
XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of
the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony,
shall still remain in force
In PROVINCIAL CONGRESS, New Jersey,
Burlington, July 2, 1776.
By order of Congress.
SAMUEL TUCKER, Pres.
William Paterson, Secretary.
http://www.state.nj.us/njfacts/njdoc10a.htm
This will appear the more necessary, when it is considered, that not only the Constitution and laws made in pursuance thereof, but all treaties made, under the authority of the United States, are the supreme law of the land, and supersede the Constitutions of all the States.
-Brutus Anti-Federalist #84
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.