Posted on 05/16/2002 3:05:12 AM PDT by LibertyRocks
Put another way, if the 1st Amendment applies to the states, why can't the 2nd? (don't say "because such a ruling hasn't happened" - I'm talking about [near] future, just as the 1st at one time had not been incorporated, then was. I want to know why it cannot happen, ever.)
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams
Read that again carefully. It does not say what you think it does.
Of course our use of arms is managed by law. Nobody contends that anyone should be able to do target practice on a city street, or shoot clerks who ring up wrong bills. We are, of course, to act within the law, and to use arms outside the law will quickly destroy law & society - which is PRECISELY why gunowners are such a remarkably law-abiding bunch: they understand the power of arms.
Adams' admonition to use arms only for self-defense, or in service to a jurisdiction, presupposes personal ownership of arms: one cannot very well use a pistol for self-defense, or a rifle to protect the state, if one has neither pistol nor rifle. The only reason I can defend myself is my posession of a pistol, and the only reason I can move to the front line in defense of my state within minutes is my ownership of a rifle - and that I have trained with these very tools. By opposing personal ownership of arms, you not only prevent what Adams says one should not do, but also prevent what Adams says one _should_ do.
Our governments have taken your approach and gutted Adams' words: by banning arms (on the whole) and failing to organize & train those with arms, citizens cannot defend themselves or their state - actions which Adams noted were reasonable and expected. If you expect me to stop my would-be murderer, I must have a pistol. If you expect me to act in defense of my state, I must have an M16 and appropriate training. I will pay the costs out of my own pocket, and spend my own time preparing - but if the state forbids my ownership of arms and related training, the state cannot expect anything of me when I am called to defend the state. I cannot give that which I am not allowed to have.
John Adams never advocated that citizens be disarmed; in your quote he simply advocated that citizens obey the law while they posess arms.
Protective legislation? Who is protected if a citizen cannot protect himself?
The right to keep and bear arms is an immunity which does not flow from state citizenship, it flows from federal citizenship.
1. Establish a prospective juror's intent & ability to follow directions. Using an example involving a question which will not be asked maintains neutrality (as opposed to asking a likely question and eliciting answers before their proper time).
2. Further document the judge's refusal to permit jurors to consider relevant plain-language supreme law which would nullify city law and thus excuse the defendant; document the judge insisting that state & federal constitutions do not apply (thus setting the trial up not only for overturning the verdict on appeal, but also for impeachment and removal of the judge).
3. Antagonize a judge who is making it clear that he is the law.
Remember: Stanely KNEW he would be convicted, and needed to gather certain evidence that the court was acting with gross negligence and arrogance, so he would be prepared for appeals.
I take it that you agree the Constitution has no place in an American court of law. How interesting.
I don't know that this is what we're seeing, and if it is the Judge could be clearer.
He's certainly free to appeal on constitutional grounds to an appellate court. It appears his lawyer didn't even attempt to dispute the charges through motion work. What they were trying to do is tamper with the jury. The jury does NOT make rulings of law, it makes findings of facts. To ask otherwise would make you an enemy of the state and a shameful human being.
Possibly, that and the National Federation of Republican Assemblies. Too bad neither wield enough power to do much of anything right now.
You misunderstand. Advocates of having "crimes against the state" are who I consider the weak and envious and not those prosecuted for comitting them.
351 - Actually, what I see there is a typo and possibly an improper comma. May the person who has never done that throw the first stone.
I don't know about the comma thing but there are three typos one of which doesn't detract from the rest. But the other two were difficult to parse. VA Advogado likes to think he can jerk my chain and usually I just ignore him and his JBT attitude.
What got your panties in a bunch? Why are you "barking" orders at me? Bad hair day?
410 - That was a personal attack and was uncalled for.
You must be a newbie. I'll check.. Yep, #89243 registered on May 10, 2002
Since you have self appointed yourself the posting police here is the post you claim was personal attack. Go ahead and quote the attack since you didn't have the guts or wherewithal or inclination or desire (one or more of those is probably appropriate) to help by quoting the attack when you made your claim. If none are appropriate perhaps you'll explain to me why you didn't quote the part you consider to be a personal attack. Here it is...
BTW, is it okay with you that I don't want to run for office? Don't get your panties in a bunch because I could careless what you do or don't do so long as you don't initiate force against anyone or try to garner an agent (namely the government) to initiate force on your behalf.
Jeesh, IMO, the most clueless type of newbie is the one that becomes the self-appointed thread police. Congratulations. Is it okay for me to post my opinion?
No source, of course.
John Adams never advocated that citizens be disarmed
The citizens of Colorado haven't been disarmed.
We are, of course, to act within the law, and to use arms outside the law will quickly destroy law & society - which is PRECISELY why gunowners are such a remarkably law-abiding bunch: they understand the power of arms.
Someone should point that out to Mr. Stanley, the convicted criminal who knowingly and deliberately acted in defiance of lawful regulation.
And would you also agree that much of the remaining sections have not been similarly ruled on primarily because the question hasn't reached SCOTUS?
The 14th Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
I take that last comment about 410 back. What you said was just rude, but then there's been a lot of rudeness, so it is wrong for me to single you out. I apologize.
I accept. Thanks. I had to wonder how many of your other policing posts I was going to be reading as I worked my way down the thread. I thought to myself "that there's going to be on really busy poster." Did you police the first 400 threads? The rude posting started up early on so hopefully you didn't start at the beginning.
It may be best that you disregard my post #535.
Now here's a question, would sinkspur ever say
With the same broad brush, I could say that, because the libertarians want to see the death of what they presently consider to be a system that ignores the Constitution, libertarians should be culled from the jury pool. ?
sinkspur did write that in post #415. If you mean would he say that in the process of jury selection? I doubt it, unless his intention was to be dismissed.
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
This section of USC clearly shows that the rights of United States citizens are protected by the the laws of the United States, not by the laws and governments of the several States as per Cruikshank.
That exceptional enough for you, Roscoe?
297 posted on 5/16/02 2:27 PM Pacific by lentulusgracchus
Stanley was convicted because of his criminal behavior, not because of his immigration status, color or race.
HCI must love him.
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.