[FreedomCalls]

Interesting. Bad cases make often make for bad decisions. This would seem to be a good case upon which to challenge 2nd Amendment violations now that the 2nd Circuit is in conflict with the 5th. He's a textbook good-guy gun owner.

[Robert_Paulson2]

some day, the robed ones at the supreme court will have to face the music, and determine once and for all: "Are guns individual rights? or rights belonging to the collective, and governed therby?"

Same goes for the other bill of rights items. Perhaps all our enumerated rights, are really just for the good of the collective... including speech.

yeah that's the ticket.

[SittinYonder]

Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."

Funny, I thought our country was founded on the idea that individual rights come from God and that government exists only to protect those rights, not to infringe on them. I've got their individual rights ...

[still_learning]

Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has identified himself as a tyrant.

[Swordmaker]

"Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."

They are right... it is not a source of invidual rights. The right is inherent in every person and cannot be granted or removed by the action of Congress. The 2nd Amendment like all of the Bill of Rights are reminders to Congress that certain rights were retained by the people when they granted limited powers to the central government.

However, these 2nd Court idiots then complete screw up everything following that in their decision.

[King Prout]

fine.
new york drivers licenses, by the same rationale, are invalid in my great State of Georgia.
pull 'em over, arrest 'em, impound and sell their cars.
that'll get the point across.

[ConservativeLawyer]

New York state countered by arguing that the Second Amendment is only a guarantee to the states of "the collective right to fortify their respective 'well regulated' militias."

This is so outrageous. It is impossible to reconcile the fact that the courts read:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,...."

and find a right guaranteed to individuals and then read:

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

and find a right guaranteed only to the states.

[IronChefSakai]

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?.... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to use, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry

[sourcery]

The Fourteenth Ammendment was adopted precisely because the Southern States were denying Blacks the right to bear arms. That is a matter of historical record, and renders this court decision invalid on its face.

[dmanLA]

They are coming for the guns. It's just a matter of time.

History and fact doesn't matter to most in government anymore.

[spinestein]

Since our Constitution is a "living document" blowing in the winds of change, this is how the 2nd amendment is interpreted today by our benevolent judges making sure that we are protected from ourselves.




AMENDMENT II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the government, the right of the military to keep and bear arms, shall not be threatened by extremist individuals with guns.




Get with the times, people.

[IronJack]

we hold that the Second Amendment's 'right to keep and bear arms' imposes on only federal, not state, legislative efforts." (Dan: What about the 14th amendment)

What about the 13th Amendment? By this idiotic logic, if a state wanted to pass a law allowing slavery, it could. And still not be in violation of the Constitution!

These judges must get their degrees off a matchbook cover.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

What nonsense.

Simple subject, "the right...
Simple predicate, "shall not be in fringed."

Who's right?

"Of the people."

So simple a second grader could do it.

This judge is simply a domestic enemy of the Republic.

[AppyPappy]

Alternate headline: Federal judge discovers state's rights

[goldstategop]

Its a completely ridiculous ruling. I mean, if individuals are NOT guaranteed the RKBA by the Second Amendment via the route of application to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment - then why do courts insist the First Amendment applies to the States as well as the federal government by virtue of the same theory? This double standard in constitutional interpretation tells us all we need to know about judicial activism. And the penchant of liberal judges to elevate some rights above others in the law.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Ancesthntr]

Absolutely incredible! Not unexpected, mind you, just incredible that a bunch of federal judges can't understand a very simple concept: That in the Constitution, rights apply to (individual) people, and powers apply to governments.

According to these dim-bulbs, every other one of the 1st 10 Amendments that refer to a "right of the People" does, in fact, protect individual rights against government encroachment in some way or other. However, the 2nd, applies to some mystical "collective" or to the states (which CANNOT have rights, only powers).

Oh, by the way, the "collective" rights theory of the 2nd Amendment first arose in American jurisprudence in a 1906 Kansas case (the name of which I can't recall). In other words, we have 117 years of prior case law which refers to the INDIVIDUAL RKBA, but that's of no matter no that some minor case in Kansas said otherwise. Res Judicata apparently only means something if the precedent in question agrees with your point of view, but not if it disagrees with it.

The failure to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states is outrageous. The 14th Amendment was, as mentioned in an earlier post, passed specifically to rectify the denial of RKBA rights to the then-newly freed slaves (i.e. US citizens) by Southern states. The FIRST of the BOR provisions that should have been incorporated was the 2nd's RKBA - but instead it appears that it will be the last (IF it is ever incorporated). What is really needed is a Supreme Court decision that does just this, that puts a stake in the heart of the "collective" rights theory and applies the 2nd to the states. I'm not holding my breath waiting for this to occur, and particularly not with this Supreme Court. We probably have 3 votes, maybe maybe 4, but not 5 or more.

I wish that everyone who is a gun owner would get at least one gun that doesn't require a 4473. It may be an antique (i.e. a pre-1899 gun) or a gun acquired directly from its owner (where that is legal...grrrrrrrr!). Its the only way to make sure that everything can't be cross-indexed or registered in some way, and later confiscated.

[longtermmemmory]

The second does not apply? what about the other rights?

So there is no first in NY?

No fourth?

No 17th?

[Atlas Sneezed]

Prediction:

SCOTUS takes this or a similar case in the next several years.

We "win" when they recognize an individual right. But they will remand for the lower court to determine whether it is a "reasonable restriction" (Ashcroft's favorite words), and the lower court will find (not surprisingly) that it is, and SCOTUS will not hear that appeal.

Then, we look around after the cheering and realize that instead of spending the past decades arguing against the unlawful infringements, we spent our energy fighting the laughable Brady straw man about collective rights, and are back where we started, with the antis having held their ground (and often having gotten the NRA to compromise further.) They have kept us from fighting for repeal of 1986, 1968, and 1934, their big victories for a generation.

Winning the individual right will mean virtually nothing. Keep your eyes on the ball.

[CCCnative]

Am I the only one whose eyes glaze over reading this? I have an interest in this subject but I found myself unable to distill the article into a + or -.

[vannrox]

Mordue held that Bach could not allege a constitutional right to bear arms because the "Second Amendment is not a source of individual rights."...

IGNORANT OR INTENTIONALLY REVISIONIST JUDGES!

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights

---

[This is a note to me from Dr. Linda Thompson of the American Justice Federation that I am passing along to everyone...email me with your comments ken]

[to ken]
You left off the MOST IMPORTANT PART of the Bill of Rights -- the PREAMBLE which tells SPECIFICALLY that the Bill of Rights was to make sure the government knew it was limited to the powers stated in the Constitution and if it didn't, the amendments were rights of the people the government couldn't screw with.
Our revisionist historians ALWAYS leave this off the Constitution!!!
Here's a copy!!!

---

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

---

The first ten amendments are "declaratory and restrictive clauses". This means they supersede all other parts of our Constitution and restrict the powers of our Constitution.

There are people in this country that do not want you to know that these two sentences ever existed. For many years these words were "omitted" from copies of our Constitution. Public and private colleges alike have based their whole interpretation of our Constitution on the fraudulent version of this text. Those corrupt individuals have claimed that the amendments can be changed by the will of the people. By this line of reasoning the amendments are open to interpretation. This is a clever deception. The Bill of Rights is separate from the other amendments. The Bill of Rights is a declaration of restrictions to the powers of our Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the Constitution. The Constitution restricts the powers of government. The deception is that the government can interpret the all of the amendments and the Constitution itself. Without the presence of the Preamble to the Bill of Rights this may be a valid argument.

End the deception.