Posted on 05/11/2002 10:23:17 AM PDT by forest
----------------------
As you can see, roscoe is in favor of ALL laws so 'regulating'.
Carried all by my wittle self.
Me, an' my Machine-Gun...
Later, things changed. The 14th Amendment was passed and a whole slew of Supreme Court cases began to impose the federal Bill of Rights on the States. The last memorable such case was Roe v. Wade where the 9th Amendment's right to privacy became enforceable in all States equally.
We will not argue that here but, suffice to say, the Federal Bill of Rights now apply within all States equally.
We can assume the Second Amendment part to be true just by the attitude taken by the Attorney General in this matter. Why in the world would he even speak on the matter if his rules only applied on federal lands? That would be a complete waste of time on his part. No, there's more to this than just that. A LOT more!
If I wished to do a few hours research, I could probably make a good argument for both sides of this matter. However, based on many Supreme Court cases (Lopez and Printz are the latest) that included firearms in one aspect or another, it becomes obvious that the Court realizes that the Second Amendment applies equally in all areas of the country.
Or, if they do not, they are going to have to do some damn fancy writing to work around past decisions.
Personally, I think that if this Court (in its present configuration) does hear Emerson, Justice Thomas will be charged with writing the 5-4 majority opinion. His excellent concurring opinions in the Tenth Amendment, Commerce and gun rights cases are already historic and leave little doubt what the outcome will be.
Which means, to keep a majority, we will probably not get everything we want. But, the right to keep and bear arms will be enforced equally throughout the nation for all law abiding citizens. Problem is, there is no telling what Congress will do about limiting that "right" afterwards.
Incorporation has been limited and selective.
Ever been to traffic court?
If you're looking for another source to back up your assertion that the states can regulate firearms as per their constitutions check with Don Kates via his website. He is a pre-eminent 2nd ammendment lawyer and a criminologist and he agrees with you. I don't agree with him because the Bill of Rights lists natural rights of the people (10th includes states as well as individuals) that are guaranteed to everyone. I think (last time I checked) everyone includes all the people in all the states. As an example, I don't think the states can pass a law that abridges or violates the 1st ammendment inre. the freedom of speech as per the 14th ammendment.
I can disagree with you without calling you names though.LOL
I believe that once the SCOTUS rules in favor of Emerson's view of the 2nd ammendment, or even a broader interpretation of individual rights our side can then use the Equal Protection clause to keep the states from starting to walk all over gun owners.
This is from Don Kates' website donkates.com I normally begin presentations like this with two points, one of which is denounced by the NRA, the other by Handgun Control. The first point is that the Second Amendment permits many kinds of gun control, including some that as a criminologist I think are useless. I spent 20+ pages of an article in the MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW on this point[1], which the NRA has described as "Orwellian Newspeak."[2] (I am not going to further discuss it today, except to admit that there are highly credible constitutional scholars who think I overstate how much gun control the Amendment allows.[3])
My second point is that what the Amendment does guarantee is the right of every law abiding, responsible adult to possess arms. Now you are doubtless familiar with claims that the Amendment does not guarantee individuals anything, but only guarantees states the right to have armed militias. Such claims are not just wrong; they are so patently wrong that they would not be publishable except that they support results many very influential people want, regardless of truth. One proof of this is to just look at the authors. Without exception, every published opponent of the individual right view is an anti-gun advocate, most of them being employed by anti-gun groups. In contrast, many of the scholars who accept the individual right position do so solely because it is historically correct even though they themselves have never owned a gun, don't like guns and would prefer a disarmed society.[4]
Suppressors are no problem...in fact, if liberals were as concerned about the health effects of gun ownership as they purport to be, they would make suppressors widely available to cut down on noise, just as is the case in some countries in Europe.
The National Firearms Act was passed in 1938. My understanding is that the meaning of the Second Amendment was quite clear to the Federal government and that Congress recognized it could not ban automatic weapons. So it just put a tax on their ownership which, thankfully, has not been increased since then. Of course, the price of machine guns has skyrocketed since the pool of available weapons is relatively fixed. I say relatively, because every so often a few new machine guns enter the market...Vector Arms in Utah is selling newly manufactured UZI subguns, because they bought several thousand blank pieces of sheet metal which were registered as machine gun receivers before 1986, and they have finished milling them and building new guns.
State law?
"Unfortunately, Roscoe was correct. Originally, the Bill of Rights applied to the federal government only. All the States had their own Bill of Rights.
Later, things changed. The 14th Amendment was passed" ---
'WAS correct' must be emphasized. -- Roscoe & I, and other 'states rights' advocates here at FR have been going round for years now on the legitimacy of the 14th, which to my mind tells states they MUST comply with constitutional basics.
As you infer, this view is NOT supported by any current powers that be. Thus, their fight to keep Emerson out of the USSC.
Regards.
No cites, natch.
18 U.S.C. lists the reasons to deny someone the right to own a firearm and it was under that code that Emerson was busted.
Of course the appeals court ruling allowed that he had a right but was given due process (at his hearing for the restraining order) before losing his right. His attorneys were trying to make the case, I believe, that even though he had a hearing a one size fits all restraining order, that doesn't address the issue of gun rights, can't automatically cost one their gun rights.
One side door way for him to try and win his appeal would seem to be that he owned the weapon already and when he had the restraining order issued against him he was in immediate violation of the violence against women act because the law makes no provision for how to dispose of the firearm without breaking the law. How can you trasfer the firearm to another's possession without breaking the law?
That seems like a stretch and I'm sure hi-falutin judges have ways of ignoring stuff like that if they can't think of an easy solution.
It seems to me that if someone is going to have their constitutional right taken away, even if only temporarily, the hearing at which that right is lost should at least address it head on and not have that effect as a silent partner to the event.
Or, if they do not, they are going to have to do some damn fancy writing to work around past decisions. Personally, I think that if this Court (in its present configuration) does hear Emerson, Justice Thomas will be charged with writing the 5-4 majority opinion. His excellent concurring opinions in the Tenth Amendment, Commerce and gun rights cases are already historic and leave little doubt what the outcome will be.
Which means, to keep a majority, we will probably not get everything we want. But, the right to keep and bear arms will be enforced equally throughout the nation for all law abiding citizens. Problem is, there is no telling what Congress will do about limiting that "right" afterwards.
------------------------------
I don't understand your problem with congress.
If the court writes a decision - [barring that 'fancy' language]-, affirming that the individual right cannot be infringed,--- how then can congress start limiting that right, - afterwards?
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.