Posted on 12/04/2008 5:34:20 AM PST by St. Louis Conservative
New York Giants star receiver Plaxico Burress is facing a mandatory 3½ years in prison and the end of his football career. His crime? Not having a license, which New York City never would have issued him, for the exercise of his constitutional right to bear arms.
Plaxico Burress is led to his arraignment in Manhattan. To be sure, Mr. Burress got caught because of what appears to have been stupid and irresponsible behavior connected with the handgun. But he does not face prison for shooting himself. His impending mandatory sentence highlights the unfairness and unconstitutionality of New York City's draconian gun laws.
Mr. Burress had previously had a handgun carry permit issued by Florida, for which he was required to pass a fingerprint-based background check. As a player for the Giants, he moved to Totowa, N.J., where he kept a Glock pistol. And last Friday night, he reportedly went to the Latin Quarter nightclub in midtown Manhattan carrying the loaded gun in his sweatpants. Because New York state permits to possess or carry handguns are not issued to nonresidents, Mr. Burress could not apply for a New York City permit.
At the nightclub, the handgun accidentally discharged, shooting Mr. Burress in the right thigh. He was not seriously injured, but he has been charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
thanks. I consider myself to have a pretty good vocab, but I have never heard of that one.
An M1A is an assault weapon. When they are banned, it won’t matter what licenses you’ve submitted to.
This despite quotations from Mason and Rawle? Not to mention the express legislation used to pass the BoR? Nothing else I can say that would change your mind then.
The FedGov isn't "all powerful", but then again... some Rights were deemed essential to freedom and off limits from ANY form of government. These they tried to protect by embedding them in the "Supreme Law of the Land".
80 million gun owners. 99.99999% of them have never committed a crime. Much less one involving a firearm.
If gun owners are too irresponsible and twichy to own guns, then maybe we're all too unpredictable to be free at all. After all, if you think people like me are dangerous with firearms, you should see what I can do with a 2-ton truck during rush hour.
Nice liberal arguments you got there. What next? More welfare for everyone too?
And you liberal big cities are still far more dangerous than us hicks out here in the hinterlands.
I would encourage you to support the national organizations, particularly those that are successfully pushing court cases.
I don't see much that can be done to help in Kalifornia. A massive riot in the big cities which demonstrates the fallacy of relying on government for protection might help. But I doubt that you can arrange that.
A truly bankrupt Kalifornia might help. We will know that the situation is really dire when the legislature decides that it cannot afford to maintain the state's gun registry. But, unfortunately, I think the liberals would rather dispense with fire-fighters or sewage treatment first.
I looked at your postings but I can't identify just specifically what you believe supports the application of the Bill of Rights to the states. Could you post a more succinct statement?
Obviously, the First Amendment states unequivocally, "Congress shall make no law ...", which rules out any limitation on state action as a result of the amendment.
I don't have an M1A. I have an M1. WWII weapon that saved the world. Thanks for playing gun expert.
BTW... It's the same action and ballistics, just an 8 round en-bloc clip instead of an external magazine. Further, it's a semi-auto. Bloomie, Sarah Brady, et al, want all semi-auto's banned. Pistol, shotgun, and Rifle.
And their boy Obama is sitting on a nearly fillibuster proof Congressional majority with only a couple of gun hating RINO's to stop a new AWB's passage.
See you in the funny papers. Because of people like you, we may all end up finding out first hand what it was like being a Jew in 1938 Germany...
And this one...
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
The first from Rawle, the second from the text of the legislation ratified by Congress and the State legislatures.
Don't try to teach me ballistics. Bloomberg is a mayor. He can't legislate. He is subject to, and not master of, the Constitution.
The first does support your contention. Can you tell me more about its context. Where did it appear? Who was the audience?
Don't try to teach me ballistics.
Apparently, no one can teach you anything. It's apparently a useless pursuit...
The second pertains to scope of the BoR and the new Constitutional Republic the Convention had put together. William Rawle and Joseph Story are some of the first authors to publish definitive works on what the Constitution is and what the new Federal government looks like. Both were prominent legal minds for the times. Rawle was appointed DA by President Washington in Pennsylvania, if I remember correctly. Story, of course, was a noted SCOTUS judge and ranks with Marshall as one of the most influential.
Both of the linked to books were law primers for both public and institutional teaching use. There was a lot of fudd being spread around by various parties, including Torie sympathizers who would have seen the new Nation fail, so the Congress hired a few folks to publish "instruction manuals".
Elliot's Debates in the 1st and 2nd Congress are a corroborating source as well. Kinda dry reading at times, but it does counter most of the wrong headed anti-Rights crap that gets spewed on threads like these.
I appreciate what you are pointing out about Rawle. But I don't consider the applicability of the Second Amendment to the states to be a small matter. The original states all seemed to have some notion of what constituted the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But their notions were not identical and I have a hard time believing that it was their intention to make their treatments of the right identical by ratifying the Bill of Rights.
I certainly don't claim to be expert in this topic, but I don't recall seeing much that would convince me that the early discussions about the Bill of Rights concerned itself with what effect ratifying such a Bill would have on state legislatures. All of the attention I recall was aimed at whether any such Bill was even required, given the explicit enumeration of powers intended by the original states.
I would be curious to hear of any other contemporaneous source making the same claim, or of any similar claims of applicability of Constitutional provisions to the states without explicitly stating so.
Read the Story link. Instead of linking to the beginning of the treatise, I linked to the applicable page.
The Constitution revised the Articles of Confederation, partially due to some of the material defects pertaining to commerce between the States and equal Rights of all US Citizens. Story even mentions the fact that while several States did indeed have their own BoR's, that one of their strongest objections to the Federal Government and it's "Supreme Law of the Land" clause, would be that since it is supreme that it should be used to secure those Rights they held common there instead. Both against the Fedgov and the State gov's their individual BoR's were formulated against.
Remember, these guys had just gotten done fighting a war to secure these liberties and Rights from an oppressive government. Why would they leave such a huge hole as enumerating certain protections as "Supreme", but then allowing a subordinate State to ignore those same protections with impunity? That's just it... despite the bleating of the anti-gun crowd, they didn't. Read logically, it means what is says...
"...The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed." Full stop. Period. Any otherwise lawful use of "arms" may not be infringed by any one governing body in the United States. No, not even by the BATFE under the "commerce clause". The commerce clause was only there to ensure States didn't impose tariffs on each other. Regulating commerce does not include everything they have stretched it to mean including bans on things they don't want us peons o have.
Anything that could qualify as an "armament" is covered. As is "bearing" it as you wish to. Swords, trebucheete, tanks, jets, aircraft carriers, M2's on your hang-glider, and Hellfire missiles for the next Knob Creek machine gun shoot. All covered. No... I'm not kidding. Nor do I think this view is really all that extreme. Hollywood and the Brady Campaign aside, there is really very little to worry about. Amazingly few people in our 340 million population committed any crime yesterday. Absent idiotic gun laws and anti-self defense decries, there'd be far fewer real criminals breathing air tomorrow.
I would be curious to hear of any other contemporaneous source making the same claim, or of any similar claims of applicability of Constitutional provisions to the states without explicitly stating so.
George Mason was quite eloquent, even wordy, during the Debates. Check Elliot's.
Done. My quick reading didn't reveal anything which suggested that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. I'd be happy to have you point out something if I missed it.
A7 303. Many of these objections found their way into the amendments, which, simultaneously with the ratification, were adopted in many of the state conventions. With the view of carrying into effect the popular will, and also of disarming the opponents of the constitution of all reasonable grounds of complaint, congress, at its very. first session, took into consideration the amendments so proposed; and by a succession of supplementary articles provided, in substance, a bill of rights, and secured by constitutional declarations most of the other important objects thus suggested. These articles (in all, twelve) were submitted by congress to the states for their ratification; and ten of them were finally ratified by the requisite number of states; and thus became incorporated into the constitution.2 It is a curious fact, however, that although the necessity of these amendments had been urged by the enemies of the constitution, and denied by its friends, they encountered scarcely any other opposition in the state legislatures, than what was given by the very party, which had raised the objections.3 The friends of the constitution generally supported them upon the ground of a large public policy, to quiet jealousies, and to disarm resentments.
=A7 304. It is perhaps due to the latter to state, that they believed, that some of the objections to the constitution existed only in imagination, and that others derived their sole support from an erroneous construction
of that instrument.1 In respect to a bill of rights, it was stated, that several of the state constitutions contained none in form; and yet were not on that account thought objectionable. That it was not true, that the constitution of the United States did not, in the true sense of the terms, contain a bill of rights. It was emphatically found in those clauses, which respected political rights, the guaranty of republican forms of government, the trial of crimes by jury, the definition of treason, the prohibition against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws and titles of nobility, the trial by impeachment, and the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. That a general bill of rights would be improper in a constitution of limited powers, like that of the United States; and might even be dangerous, as by containing exceptions from powers not granted it might give rise to implications of constructive power. That in a government, like ours, founded by the people, and managed by the people, and especially in one of limited authority, there was no necessity of any bill of rights; for all powers not granted were reserved; and even those granted might at will be resumed, or altered by the people. That a bill of rights might be fit in a monarchy, where there were struggles between the crown and the people about prerogatives and privileges. But, here, the government is the government of the people; all its officers are their officers; and they can exercise no rights or powers, but such as the people commit to them. In such a case the silence of the constitution argues nothing. The trial by jury, the freedom of the press, and the liberty of conscience are not taken away, because they are not secured. They remain with the people among the mass of ungranted powers, or find an appropriate place in the laws and institutions of each particular state.1
=A7 305. Notwithstanding the force of these suggestions, candour will compel us to admit, that as certain fundamental rights were secured by the constitution, there seemed to be an equal propriety in securing in like manner others of equal value and importance. The trial by jury in criminal cases was secured; but this clause admitted of more clear definition, and of auxiliary provisions. The trial by jury in civil cases at common law was as dear to the people, and afforded at least an equal protection to persons and property. The same remark may be made of several other provisions included in the amendments. But these will more properly fall under consideration in our commentary upon that portion of the constitution. The promptitude, zeal, and liberality, with which the friends of the constitution supported these amendments, evince the good faith and sincerity of their opinions, and increase our reverence for their labours, as well as our sense of their wisdom and patriotism.
The debates from the various State conventions also bear this out. Many are listed at Elliot's.
How anyone can read "basic human Rights", "secure our liberties", "prevent encroachment", "that every man be armed", and the other positive statements in the various declarations about our civil Rights and still think that ANY level of government infringing on them is "lawful" is entirely beyond me.
“He’s probley a liberal moron, let him burn in jail.
He is no doubt in the enemy camp and supports socislism in general.”
Are you not embarrassed to charge someone a moron and misspell so many words?
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.