Posted on 03/13/2006 2:39:12 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
State's rights aren't constitutional? The rights of states are antithetical to individual rights? WTF are you talking about?
Well, you know what I think about that. The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law..." The Second does not. The "home rule" folks might try to convince people that the State governments can restrict freedom of speech - good luck - but I don't see a lot of wiggle-room in the Second. It says pretty much what it says.
I think it means, that if a state wants to keep a militia for it's security, the People have the right and duty to keep their eye on the militia and well regulate them.
It's really quite simple.
'Rulers LOVE Unarmed Peasants!!!'
I think this 'states rights' position is a delusion brought on by the idea that "the majority" in a community can control the life, liberty, or property of anyone else, using laws that 'prohibit evil'.
Any comments?
True. But the lower federal courts have consistently ruled that the second amendment only protects a collective RKBA from federal infringement -- collective meaning "as part of a militia".
An individual RKBA is protected by the citizen's state constitution.
State's rights aren't constitutional? The rights of states are antithetical to individual rights? WTF are you talking about?
See #45, and feel free to comment.
Yeah, that'll be next, LOL!
"I went shooting today and not a single fetus was harmed"
I call dibs! :)
The lower federal courts have interpreted the second amendment as "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as part of a militia shall not be infringed by the federal government".
However I can't imagine you making the following assumption:
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
The ACLU was founded by an avowed Communist for the express purpose of using the Constitution against itself for the best interests of the Communist Party.
It has not announced any changes to that policy.
Answering his assertion. I didn't use the best choice of words. Sorry.
Parsing the grammer is a second strong clue.
An individual RKBA is protected by the citizen's state constitution.
Except where you've claimed that "bans" are "found to be constitutional."
The City of Chicago bans handguns under home rule powers and it was found to be constitutional.
45 posted on 03/12/2006 7:09:14 AM PST by robertpaulsen
How about this? An individual RKBA is protected by the state constitution, and the formation of an armed citizens militia is protected from federal infringement by the U.S. Constitution.
What a novel concept, yes? It's got federalism written all over it!
Awe, Man! A new guy won this year. Some new friend of DH's, a ringer from Maine of all places! (He's a customer of DH's in our computer consulting biz.) Brother Steve was second, neighbor Randy was third, three other guys and my SIL Kellie were next...and I was last; but the rest of them shoot regularily at their "clubs." Guess I'd better get right on that. Now, if I still had my M-16 flipped to auto they wouldn't stand a chance, LOL!
But man, I love to shoot. It's just nice being outside and trying out different guns. It's just fun, fun, fun. :) DH has a slight disability (repaired, though still problematic bad discs in his neck) so he doesn't shoot anymore, but keeps meticulous score.
First prize was an Amish-raised roasting chicken. Second prize was a Cornish Rock Hen, LOL! Nothing for the rest of us losers except a fun day. :)
Yea, I've seen a bit on that. Pretty ridiculous, huh?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The question is whether the 2nd Amendment's mandate to not infringe is covered by "nor prohibited by it to the States." ("It" here meaning the Constitution, of course). In my opinion it is so covered. But I'm not a lawyer.
Do you think the Founding Fathers ever thought such a thing could happen? Yes, they feared the thought of a tyranical federal government amd put constitutional safeguards in place. But their own state -- a tyranny? Never.
What it means to me is...when I hear hoofbeats, I expect horses...not zebras.
Read it. Understand it. Act on it. Period.
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.