Teaching the Second Amendment

SierraTimes.com ^ | July 13, 2006 | Jennifer Freeman

[neverdem]

The public education system has tremendous influence in shaping the views of millions of young Americans. In many cases, the public school system is the only exposure that many children have to the Bill of the Rights. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that our nation's teachers are enlightening our young people and teaching them correctly about our rights and the meaning behind them. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of educators in the United States appear to promote an anti-gun agenda or, at the very least, prefer not to teach the Second Amendment in its true light. We base this opinion, in part, on the fact that the United States Parent-Teacher Association and the National Education Association are both openly anti-gun organizations. We further base our opinion on the fact that the public education system at large seems aligned with the left-leaning socialist agenda that also dominates the dinosaur media and the Democractic Party. These are organizations and individuals who side with the enemy during wartime, attack Christian expression while simultaneously supporting public, other-than-Christian religious expression, and support the licensing and registration of guns while secretly conniving to confiscate every one of them.

These are the same people who try to deny that the Second Amendment applies to you and me, but applies to the National Guard instead. These are the same people who conjured up the term, "assault rifle" in an effort to ban semi-automatic rifles. They claim that when the Constitution was written, the Founding Fathers never intended it to apply to the types of firearm technology available today.

Any red-blooded, patriotic American who understands the true meaning of the Second Amendment is closer in spirit to our Founding Fathers than the sniveling, whiners who call themselves intellectuals. As such, we know that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the American people and is not restricted to muskets. We can further prove the intent of the Founding Fathers by observing how they lived and by reading many of the supporting articles and letters that outline their philosophy on the symbiotic relationship between an armed populace and a government that serves its people.

It is time to demand that our nation's education system duly recognize our Bill of Rights and teach the Second Amendment according to its true intent. You can start by talking to your child and asking them if they are learning about the Constitution in school. If so, take a look at their textbook and see if the Second Amendment is accurately reported. If there is a problem with the textbook or if the Second Amendment is not being taught at all, you may want to talk to your child's principal. You may also want to team up with other parents who share the same views. Teachers have a responsibility to our children and we have a responsibility to see that our nation's teachers are doing their jobs properly.

Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.

http://www.libertybelles.org

jennifer@libertybelles.org

[tpaine]

In a sense, we're all wasting time responding..
He doesn't even bother to reply to a lot of posts anymore. - He just ignores anything tough, and posts one of his canned agit-prop bits to the easy pickings.

This type of spamming happened once before.. Remember the 'Ash Alerts'?

[robertpaulsen]

When a second amendment case finally comes before them, the U.S. Supreme Court will examine lower federal circuit court opinions. The 5th Circuit Court's opinion in Emerson is the only one I'm aware of that stated an individual RKBA was protected under the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Bliss v. Commonwealth was an 1822 Kentucky State Supreme Court case rendering an opinion on state law under the state constitution.

In 1846 in Nunn v. State, the Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the second amendment PLUS the rights protected by the Georgia State Constitution allowed for open carry by individuals.

Cockrum v. State was an 1859 case decided by the Texas Supreme Court.

State v. Chandler was an 1850 case decided by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Beard v. United States was an 1895 U.S. Supreme Court case, but it had nothing to do with the second amendment.

Brown v. State was a 1901 case decided by the Supreme Court of Georgia. Or, if you were referring to People v. Brown, that was a 1931 case decided by the Michigan Supreme Court.

Shelly v. Kramer was a 1947 U.S. Supreme Court case, but it, too, had nothing to do with the second amendment.

What a complete waste of my time. These are state cases.

No federal court has ruled that the second amendment applies to the states -- for a state supreme court to comment on the definition of the second amendment is ludicrous. It has no meaning. It makes no difference what the state court thinks -- the second amendment doesn't apply.

Do you have any other lower federal circuit court decisions like Emerson? From the 1st circuit court, 2nd circuit court, 3rd circuit court, etc? If not, I rest my case.

[Dead Corpse]

You SAID there was never a State case that ruled the Second was an individual Right. Given 15 seconds I came up with a few. Now you object BECAUSE they are State cases.

I'd ask you to make up your mind, but I know such is useless. Your mind is already made up and you MUST hold up your Brady Gun Control logic at all costs or you don't get your bonus this week.

We understand your position perfectly.

[Dead Corpse]

Further...

No federal court has ruled that the second amendment applies to the states --

Which other parts of the Constitution require a Federal Court to rule on them before they apply? Does a court need to rule on all new legislation passed by Congress before it applies to the States?

You jsut keep getting worse and worse over the years.

[robertpaulsen]

"You SAID there was never a State case that ruled the Second was an individual Right."

Baloney. Learn to read.

I said, "Actually, every lower federal court in every second amendment case (save one court in one case) has ruled that the second amendment protects a collective right."

[Designer]

"..actually teach the kids reading and grammar."

And logic, which is not taught even at the college level, or so it seems.

[Dead Corpse]

Have you read the Civil Rights cases of 1883? Interesting take on Federal and State power limits.

The first section of the fourteenth amendment,-which is the one relied on,-after declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, and of the several states, is prohibitory in its character, and prohibitory upon the states. It declares that [109 U.S. 3, 11] 'no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' It is state action of a particular character that is prohibited. Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject- matter of the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws. It not only does this, but, in order that the national will, thus declared, may not be a mere brutum fulmen, the last section of the amendment invests congress with power to enforce it by appropriate legislation. To enforce what? To enforce the prohibition. To adopt appropriate legislation for correcting the effects of such prohibited state law and state acts, and thus to render them effectually null, void, and innocuous. This is the legislative power conferred upon congress, and this is the whole of it. It does not invest congress with power to legislate upon subjects which are within the domain of state legislation; but to provide modes of relief against state legislation, or state action, of the kind referred to.

It would seem to me that the Courts reasoning would completely over turn every State level gun ban, CCW, and open carry restriction in the Nation.

Further, it also would over turn some 90% of the Federal laws including the NFA of '34 and the GCA of '68. Assuming, of course, that anyone in a position of "power" cared to do so. It isn't in their best interests to let go of this pilfered power.

That, and folks like our erstwhile Brady Troll would need to find other employment.

[tpaine]

-- for a state supreme court to comment on the definition of the second amendment is ludicrous. It has no meaning. It makes no difference what the state court thinks -- the second amendment doesn't apply.

Your opinion that a State court opinion is "ludicrous", is itself ludicrous. -- They have meaning, but solely as opinions.. "-- Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, [to support the 2nd] any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. --"

Do you have any other lower federal circuit court decisions like Emerson?

None are necessary, - as the Constitution itself is clear on the subject. --- Court decisions do not supersede our supreme Law of the Land.

[robertpaulsen]

"Which other parts of the Constitution require a Federal Court to rule on them before they apply? Does a court need to rule on all new legislation passed by Congress before it applies to the States?"

Federal law applies immediately. If that federal law is challenged, as with Emerson, then the lower federal circuit court hears the case first.

I'm saying Emerson was the only case heard at the federal circuit court level that said the second amendment protects an individual right.

Every other federal court, especially the 9th circuit, has ruled it protects a collective right in every case they heard.

[neverdem]

The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia and the reserve militia.

The 1903 Dick Act, which replaced the old Militia Act of 1792, divided all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 into the organized militia, i.e. the reserve components including the National Guard who will eventually draw federal pensions if they qualify, and the reserve unorganized militia, i.e. the rest of us who are fit enough, all other things being equal. I'll let everyone know when I'm too old to fight, NOT!

[neverdem]

Thus the very importance of the rights protected by the First and Second Amendment was used as the basis for the argument that they did not apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment. In later opinions, chiefly Presser v. Illinois 61 andMiller v. Texas 62 the Supreme Court adhered to the view. Cruikshank has clearly been superseded by twentieth century opinions which hold that portions of the Bill of Rights — and in particular the right to assembly with which Cruikshank dealt in addition to the Second Amendment — are binding upon the state governments. Given the legislative history of the Civil Rights Acts and the Fourteenth Amendment, and the more expanded views of incorporation which have become accepted in our own century, it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment against infringement by officials acting under color of state law.

For those who want to infringe on my natural rights, I got the rope.

[Dead Corpse]

Federal law applies immediately.

But Amendments are special cases apparently. There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again. No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner.

Only in your liberal court decisions designed to REMOVE the protections for the Rights that stand in the way of a collectivist State is such a fiction found.

And you cheerlead this fiction. This makes you a troll in my book and not worth conversing with.

[Dead Corpse]

You've got rope. I've got a tall tree and your back if need be.

[Richard-SIA]

"The 2nd amendment is 2nd because it is the 2nd most important right to ensure an enduring democracy"

Sorry, it has been shown many times that the numerical order of the first ten amendments to the U.S. constitution is entirely random.

The First is not "More" important than the Second, Fourth, Eighth, or Tenth.
It is NOT a list of descending priorities.

All are equally important, all were required for the Constitution of which they are an integral part to be ratified.

In order to fully regain our republic we must support an UNABRIDGED constitution and B.O.R.

[robertpaulsen]

"it is clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to be and should be protected under the civil rights statutes and"

"meant to be" and "should be" is a far cry from "is".

You want to exercise your natural rights? Fine. Then go live above the tree line with the rest of the mountain men. You want to live among a civilized society? Then you'll follow societies laws.

[tpaine]

paulsen:
I'm saying Emerson was the only case heard at the federal circuit court level that said the second amendment protects an individual right.
Every other federal court, especially the 9th circuit, has ruled it protects a collective right in every case they heard.

There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again.
No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner.
Only in your liberal court decisions designed to REMOVE the protections for the Rights that stand in the way of a collectivist State is such a fiction found.

And you cheerlead this fiction. This makes you a troll in my book and not worth conversing with.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Well said DC. Perhaps there should be an alert:

---Caution--- This is a 'Collective Rights and Majority Rules' cheerleader speaking.

[robertpaulsen]

"But Amendments are special cases apparently. There are no "collective" Rights as the numerous quotations by the Founders have proven time and time again. No where else in the Constitution, or historical documentation, is the theory of "collective Rights" espoused in any manner."

The RKBA protected by state constitutions is an individual right. If the Founders, or any others, were talking about individual rights, they were referring to their state.

The second amendment only applies to the federal government and the laws Congress writes. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals' RKBA. That right is protected by your state constitution.

"And you cheerlead this fiction"

Nope. I merely state the facts. You don't like the facts, and would like to stick with your fantasy.

You would have the people just sit back, telling them the second amendment will protect them. You're more dangerous to gun owners than Sarah Brady with that ignorant thinking.

[tpaine]

"Your fantasy":

The second amendment only applies to the federal government and the laws Congress writes. The second amendment has nothing to do with individuals' RKBA.

Cheerleading for Collective Rights and Majority Rule.

[neverdem]

You want to exercise your natural rights? Fine. Then go live above the tree line with the rest of the mountain men. You want to live among a civilized society? Then you'll follow societies laws.

Senator Vitter To Force Vote Prohibiting Future Gun Confiscations

I wonder why more states are passing laws like that too.

[Dead Corpse]

The RKBA protected by state constitutions is an individual right. If the Founders, or any others, were talking about individual rights, they were referring to their state.

Which is an outright lie according to every historical source on the debates of the issue. One you should know better by now than to try and repeat. We point out that the Founders meant "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms" and you come back with some crap about the States being able to ignore the Constitution that they are subject to.

You are the one upholding the Brady logic used by the Courts to restrict RKBA.