Posted on 03/13/2006 2:39:12 PM PST by Atlas Sneezed
Save Our Skeet is just the orginization to help with this imperative goal.
ACT NOW!!!
Don't just MOVE ON!!!
SOS is the ANSWER!!!
LOLOLOLOl
Allow me to clarify that sentence: "The City of Chicago bans handguns under home rule powers and it was found to be constitutional under Illinois' constitution."
Be that as it may, when a second amendment case finally reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court will be examining all the lower court rulings to arrive at their interpretation.
Only one lower federal court (the 5th Circuit) in one case (U.S. v Emerson) has ruled that the second amendment protects an individual right -- every other court in all the other cases have ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right.
Not good.
If you believe that this interpretation is correct, would you also agree that entities such as police departments lack such a right to arm their officers?
I agree .. the key word is "people"!
The framers were very exact in their writing. If they had meant something else they would have said something else.
These words "not be infringed" keep getting infringed upon, and I think all of us are getting pretty sick and tired of it.
The founders felt that the government should not have all the guns.
I am sure that there are FReepers who can more succinctly make the point. Me being from Massachusetts and not ever having owned a gun makes me slightly unqualified.
We agree.
"Who Is Right about the Right to Bear Arms?"
I am.
Well, I'll let them speak for themselves. If I understand the argument correctly it's based on the 10th Amendment:
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.
Paulsen, will you "speak for them --"? Can you explain why an individual right is not "-- prohibited by it to the States." ("It" here meaning the Constitution, of course)?
The individual RKBA is defined and protected by each state in their state constitution. Arming state, city and local law enforcement agencies would be covered under a state constitution, as would arming the citizens.
We agree
Don't be too sure of that. Bobby supports the power of state & local governments to prohibit most anything.
Right bob?
This is not hard to figure out.
Pick up any encylopedia, history book, etc, written before 1970.
It will be matter of factly written that the right to bear arms was an individual right. Some sources will probably cite some of the Federalist Papers, English Common Law, etc to make the case.
There was never any confusion over this for the first 200 years of America.
Only since the libs started re-writing the 'living constitution' has their been any confusion on this issue.
But only a militia of citizens could bear arms without regard to federal regulations, right?
You know, it's really not that difficult.
I agree. There are two clauses in that sentence. One is a dependent clause, the other an independent clause. The framers knew English I suspect. The independent clause can stand alone: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "We" are the people. Period, end of discussion.
Jag
LMAO
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
Allow me to clarify that sentence:
"The City of Chicago bans handguns under home rule powers and it was found to be constitutional under Illinois' constitution."
Nice try, but I'm sure you will still insist that local "home rule" gun bans cannot be found unconstitutional by the USSC; -- correct?
An individual RKBA is "found" in the 9th amendment, if you will. But the federal government doesn't protect that right (the collective RKBA as part of a militia is protected from federal infringement, yes). So who does?
Each state, in their respective state constitutions, defines and protects the individual RKBA. If a state does not protect your right to concealed carry, for example, you have nowhere to turn.
here's a link to an article about militias in a 1930 world book.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1556914/posts
I'm with you on that! The smell of gunpowder is aromatic. On our first anniversary in 1972, I gave my wife a bottle of Hoppe's #9 as perfume. And she's still a better pistol shot than I am.. dammit! LOL
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.