Posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:33 PM PDT by neverdem
If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
"Well-regulated" is an adverb describing the desired character of the militia. "regulation" is in this case a noun, but one that indicate the action of the verb "to regulate".
Also federalist 29, and the others, are discussing the provisions of the Constitution as proposed, before the Bill of Rights were written and passed. If there is a conflict, which there is not, IMHO, then the amendment would control, as that is the nature of the action of an amendment upon the document amended.
As my Army buddies would say:
and the Jarheads would say:
but since I'm a retired AF Reserve officer, I'll say. (cleaned up for FR)
Thanks for the intell, I'll go follow the story as well.
This is the 2nd time you've associated my comments with automatic weapons. It was a lie the first time and it's still a lie the 2nd time.
At post #215 you commented:
"-- it is the National Firearms Act that limits what arms private individuals can own, and it is enforced every day of the year. --
---Let me quote from an article at Guncite.com, ---
". . . Likewise, the amendment does not protect the possession of fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and so on.
Do you deny that you wrote that it is the National Firearms Act that limits what arms private individuals can own? --- And did you not post that the NFA does not protect the possession of fully automatic weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, flame throwers, artillery pieces, tanks, nuclear devices, and so on? . . ."
Yes; I posted both statements and I also quoted Guncite.com dealing with the same thing I was addressing; namely, what the law is or how the law is actually interpreted by the courts.
There is a difference between the way the law is actually enforced and the way it should be enforced
There is a difference between the way the law is actually enforced and the way it should be enforced
There is a difference between the way the law is actually enforced and the way it should be enforced
There is a difference between the way the law is actually enforced and the way it should be enforced
There! That should help.
No, it doesn't help explain why you said I lied about your comments on automatic weapons; - comments you now admit you made.
You can give me whatever label you want, but I do not want my neighbor possessing a 105 mm cannon and setting it up in his front yard.
~268~
Jacque, -- you label yourself every time you make a comment like that. -- Thanks again.
"See my post #250 on the previous page for its paragraph on the L.A. Police vs. the Bloods and the Crips."
So because criminals, from whom I'm also supposed to be able to protect myself, my family, and my neighbors, could argue that they also possess legally these weapons, my right to bear arms is curtailed? I think not. Your argument is absurd. BTW, until fairly recently, it was legal for private citizens to own cannon and the like for their protection. Muzzle-loading cannon are still legal, in fact, as are "antique" breach-loaders.
You may be interested in this if you haven't seen it.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html
FReegards
Do you have a link to the whole brief?
That seems to be an absurdity. Wouldn't that mean that, since all citizens live in some state, that the BoR protects no one. Sort of like saying the sheriff can't pistol whip you and jail you for years without trial, but you local town cop can.
I don't disagree, BTW, that that seems to be the current reading by the courts, but basic logic cannot come to terms with that, IMHO.
No. What matters is what the various Constitutions Texas and the United States are subject to that matter. A Law that runs contrary to either Constitution cannot be considered "Constitutional" unless it conforms to the specific limits on said powers. Texas ratified the US Constitution upon application as a State and thereby made itself subject to thsoe same limitations.
Cruickshank re-iterated the point that while methods of "regulation", such as CCW laws, can be considered legal... they are NOT legal if there is no other method whereby said Right could be exercized; EI no open carry of handguns in Texas. When a "regualtion" passes that line and becomes a infringement is where this type of incrementalism crosses the line.
The NFA of '34, the GCA of '68, and the FOPA of '86 are all blatantly unConstitutional. As are most of the other 22,000 Federal laws on the books set up to ensnare gun owners. "Shall not be infringed" is explicit and general. Outlawing open carry and then several restricting concealed carry is not "regulation".
Could be. NRA-ILA has a list of State cases that run along the same lines as English V TX. Including the Emmerson case, although even that judges ruling left "wiggle room" in the language.
A tax on sale is one thing. A prohibitive tax scheme that imposes limits on ownership, violates 5th amendment provisions, and sets up an internal police force notorious for abuses is NOT a good thing.
It is YOU who is trying to pull an argumentum ad absurdum. And the idea of being at a weapons disadvantage against another dicatator is a HORRIBLE thing to contemplate. Much more so than the idea the outside chance the local gang bangers, who can't afford paint jobs for their Ricer cars, could somehow scrape up enough cash for an M1 Abhrams.
In all of the 50 States, there is only 1 that has a "Constitutional" CCW law. Alaska. Vermont comes in a close second. The Texas law denies open carry and requires a "guilty until proven innocent" type violation of the 5th Amendment.
Has there ever been a logical refutation of Nunn V GA? The judge really seems to have knocked the whole argument down with this one paragraph:
Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.
The brief is at the hotlink I put in the post you responded to. But here it is again; http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/miller_compilation.html
The Second Amendment was placed there to preserve the existence of the several states. The Fourteenth Amendment allowed the expansion of FedGov while sidestepping the question of the continued existence of the several states.
Prior to, and for several decades after, it was considered that the Bill of Rights only protected against actions of the Federal government. IOW, it removed from the federal government the power to abridge the rights protected.
The 14th amendment was, IMHO and that of many others, to change that so as to remove from the powers of the states to do so. However the Supreme Court ruled, more than once, that the 14th only prohibited the states from infringing rights unique to US Citizenship, that is rights which could be impinged upon by the Federal Government acting in those areas where it holds delegated powers, such as the right to operate on the Navigable waters of the US. Of course it is absurd that a Constitutional amendment would be required for that. Congress already had power in those areas, and could have passed a regular law to protect those areas from state infringement, because federal law overrides state law, if the Federal government has been delegated power to operate in a particular ares. Besides which the debates in Congress clearly indicate that the intent was most specifically to protect the right to vote, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and the rights of free speech and assembly, all of which were at the time being violated by Southern, (and truth be told Northern as well) state and especially local governments.
RightWhale wrote:
The Second Amendment was placed there to preserve the existence of the several states.
And -- to preserve the right of the people to keep arms.
The Fourteenth Amendment allowed the expansion of FedGov
Common misconception. No state powers were removed. States never have had the power to ignore the "law of the land". [see Art VI]
while sidestepping the question of the continued existence of the several states.
States still have enormous powers, -- among them is the power to challenge the feds on constitutional issues, and even to flat out refuse to obey or enforce acts repugnant to the US Constitution.
IE, - the feds could do nothing if Montana law allowed citizens to own locally manufactured machine guns, as the BATF is subordinate to county Sheriffs.
[such a law has been proposed]
Pretty much like what we are seeing with California, Maryland, ect... with their current unConstitutional gun bans.
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.