Jim Crow tactics erode gun rights

Los Angeles Daily News ^ | 21 January 2002 | David L. Peltz

[Joe Brower]

[tomakaze]

RE:The U.S. Constitution is the unquestioned law of our land

Void where prohibited.

[BillyBoy]

>> I took my first trip to the South and was in for a big shock. Before me were "white" and "colored" drinking fountains, restrooms, etc. Segregation was rampant. Worse, it was totally acceptable to the white locals, the local governments and even to the Southern state governments <<

Ah, yes. "The era of ONE-PARTY southern DemocRAT rule. Those were the good ol' days..." so the 'RAT apologists will claim on this forum. Disgusting, isn't it? You have to agree with them and believe racist, socialist DEMOCRATS were heros or you're a "southerner hater" (even though you're more than happy to praise CURRENT southern leaders)

[RogueIsland]

Void where prohibited.

U.S. Constitution not valid in California, Maryland, NYC, New Jersey, or Mass. Consult your local politicians before attempting to use U.S. Constitution.

[Ditto]

Because California's governor, attorney general, legislators and courts just don't get it, it's time for the federal government to go to California in the exact same way they went to Alabama in the 1960s -- to restore civil rights.

Should they use the 14th Amendment to kill unconstitutional gun laws in California as they used it in Alabama in the 60s to kill Jim Crow?

Does this then become a states rights argument?

[meenie]

It is about time to restore America's rights. Perhaps it will take a Martin Luther King style uprising to get the elite's attention.

[snowfox]

Wouldn't this then become quite ironic if California resorted to guns to enforce its' right, as happened in the last big discussion over states rights 140 years ago?

[a_federalist]

bump

Petition link

[tpaine]

Incredible as it may sound, I have been told by quite a few freepers that they could care less if California bans weapons.

I'll flag a few, and see if they still feel this way.

[Shooter 2.5]

You can take Fred25 off your list. He's not interested.

[tpaine]

Thank you, fred.

[Mini-14]

I recently purchased a shotgun, and declined to provide my SSN (which is OPTIONAL) on the NICS form. The dealer did not run a NICS check because I presented my carry license. The manager got really bent out of shape because I didn't provide a SSN, and someone said that the ATF is going to jump all over them.

There was a retired marine working there who was tickled pink that I refused to provide a SSN.

[Standing Wolf]

Leftists are to American civil rights
as the A.I.D.S. virus is to health!

[Comus]

What is it about free Southerners that scares you, Boy?

[DeaconBenjamin]

The Fourteenth Amendment was originally written in response to gun laws (prohibiting blacks' access to firearms).

Interestingly, one of Chief Justice Taney's arguments in Dred Scott was that if Dred Scott (and other freedmen) were US citizens, then they could not be denied the right to own firearms. In other words, the post-war black code prohibitions on firearm ownership violated the Second Amendment. I don't know if Second Amendment challenges to the statutes prohibiting blacks from owning firearms were ever attempted.

[gieriscm]

Thx for the link.

[45Auto]

I don't know if Second Amendment challenges to the statutes prohibiting blacks from owning firearms were ever attempted.

The 1875 SC case, US v. Cruikshank, is about the closest case to address the gun rights (among other rights) of Freedmen. Even so, this was not about government trying to deny rights, but about whether US law at the time could be invoked to protect civil rights from being infringed by other private parties. The SC concluded this was a 'state issue' and remanded the case. It also said that the 2nd Amendment "stayed the hand of the Federal government only", and, thus, set the stage for a hundred years of lunatic leftists claiming that the 2nd could be infringed by the states. The trouble is, the 2nd has never been formally 'incorporated' under the 14th. It is this decision, and the subsequent quoting of it by later courts, that has allowed the (current) government of California to freely abridge the 2A rights of its citizens.

[Redcloak]

Does this then become a states rights argument?

...or put another way, does a State's sovereign rights give it the ability to abridge Federally guaranteed rights? Can, for example, a State use burning at the stake as a punishment? The prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is in the Federal Constitution. Does it apply to the States?