Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Do state trump Bill of Rights on firearms?
WorldNetDaily ^

Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick

The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.

In a letter sent earlier this month to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America, a California-based gun-rights organization, Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, "the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29009

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Government
KEYWORDS: banglist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 441-456 next last
To: Viva Le Dissention
The Supreme Court does NOT have the power of judical review in the Constitution.

From Article III, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority".

101 posted on 09/20/2002 9:26:03 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Jefferson was wrong and should have used the word power instead of right.

Jefferson wasn't a simpleton.

102 posted on 09/20/2002 9:26:28 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Zon
"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson
103 posted on 09/20/2002 9:38:32 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." -- Thomas Jefferson"

The quote is taken out of the context of the total concept of govm't held by Jefferson. Using the quote this way could also be done by those wishing to validate the imposition of socialism, communism, theocracy, or some other authoritarian form of rule. Jefferson held authoritarian rule to be abhorrent, thus using his name to justify something other than what he promoted is just as abhorrent.

104 posted on 09/20/2002 9:41:56 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"Will the people suffer it? If they will not, then they must be armed to effectively press that point. Our founders understood this ... tyrants understand this ... we'd best not forget it."

What it comes down to is who WILL pick up arms against the first "law enforcement officials" who try to enforce "laws" which violate our rights, and especially the right to bear arms against those who would be the agents of enforcement of this kind of tyranny. I can't wondering if our will to act will match our words of complaint.

105 posted on 09/20/2002 9:46:38 AM PDT by sweetliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bonesmccoy; All
Various statewide propositions have attempted to incorporate the 2nd Amendment into the state constitution but failed. I wonder if a more productive approach would be (along the lines of JPFO) a proposition to incorporate all of the applicable amendments of the Bill of Rights into the state constitution.

It seems to me that that approach would tend to bring into focus, even for non-gun-owners, what the real issues in this situation actually are.

On the subject of the SC, I think it is a little bit ludicrous to believe that each of the 20,000 gun laws currently in existence today, not a single one has been found to be unconstitutional. This sounds to me more like SC un-cojones-ability than infallibility (or some kind of legislative miracle). Without questioning the fine print legalities of the matter, I read this as incentive for the common citizen to BLOAT, "big-time". And I don't see how any reasonable person could conclude otherwise.

106 posted on 09/20/2002 9:49:47 AM PDT by SteveH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson
107 posted on 09/20/2002 9:55:48 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
You are right.
108 posted on 09/20/2002 9:58:54 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
No, no, this man is absolutely correct. The US Constitution provides no protection against state infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

Wrong!Read the amendments again.Notice how the 1st begins:"The congress shall make no law"...An explicit limitation on the congress.

the Second says..."shall not be infringed."It does not mention congress or any other body.It is all inclusive.

In the 10th amendment we see that the constitution was indeed on some level to apply to the states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The 2nd amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,period.

As an aside,this is the same Bill Lockyer who commented that Ken Lay should be escorted to a jail cell and intoduced to a tatooed cell mate named Spike.The chief law-enforcement officer of California joking about the homosexual predation that goes on in our prisons.I wish some poor inmate would sue Lockyer and the state for not providing a safe place in which to incarcerate criminals.

109 posted on 09/20/2002 10:04:40 AM PDT by kennyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kennyo
"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore 7 Pet. 243 (1833)

"The Fifth Amendment provides, among other things, that no person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury. This court has held that, in prosecutions by a state, presentment or indictment by a grand jury may give way to informations at the instance of a public officer. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 , 4 S.Ct. 111, 292; Gaines v. Washington, 277 U.S. 81, 86 , 48 S.Ct. 468, 470. The Fifth Amendment provides also that no person shall be [302 U.S. 319, 324] compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. This court has said that, in prosecutions by a state, the exemption will fail if the state elects to end it. Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 106 , 111 S., 112, 29 S.Ct. 14. Cf. Snyder v. Massachusetts, supra, 291 U.S. 97 , at page 105, 54 S.Ct. 330, 332, 90 A.L.R. 575; Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, 285, 56 S.Ct. 461, 464. The Sixth Amendment calls for a jury trial in criminal cases and the Seventh for a jury trial in civil cases at common law where the value in controversy shall exceed $20. This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether. Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 ; Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581 , 20 S.Ct. 448, 494; New York Central R.R. Co. v. White, 243 U.S. 188, 208 , 37 S.Ct. 247, L.R.A.1917D, 1, Ann. Cas.1917D, 629; Wagner Electric Co. v. Lyndon, 262 U.S. 226, 232 , 43 S.Ct. 589, 591. As to the Fourth Amendment, one should refer to Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 , 34 S.Ct. 341, L.R. A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177, and as to other provisions of the Sixth, to West v. Louisiana, 194 U.S. 258 , 24 S.Ct. 650." -- PALKO v. STATE OF CONNECTICUT, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)

"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)

"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

110 posted on 09/20/2002 10:07:16 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
The only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court of the United States. It and it alone interprets what the Constitution says.

Totally false. Congress can and does interpret the Constitution. The president is supposed to veto unconstitutional laws. Jurors have an obligation to vote acquital if *in their opinion* the statute that the case is being tried under is unconstitutional.

111 posted on 09/20/2002 10:10:27 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Gig
I ran across this link regarding State Defense Forces:
http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/gvcon3.html
I would love to see the de-federalization of the National Guard!
112 posted on 09/20/2002 10:11:45 AM PDT by sheltonmac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Also, the first says "Congress shall make no law..", the second says "..shall not be infringed." The First was not intended to apply to the states, since there were established churches in some of them. The Second was.
113 posted on 09/20/2002 10:12:07 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
..gun ownership can be infringed by the states...

Only with the unanimous consent of twelve jurors.

114 posted on 09/20/2002 10:13:38 AM PDT by Virginia-American
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson
115 posted on 09/20/2002 10:15:15 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will; and externally to transact business with other nations through whatever organ it chooses, whether that be a King, Convention, Assembly, Committee, President, or whatever it be. The only thing essential is, the will of the nation." --Thomas Jefferson

Only a person has rights. Jefferson should have used the word power rather than rights. Of course, Jefferson shouldn't have owned slave either.

Jefferson was correct when he wrote "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

As to the topic of this thread:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson

"Runaway now little man", the peasant said to the king.

116 posted on 09/20/2002 10:17:07 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
And BTW, you can expect the Fedral government would support the State even though it is the State that is out of control.

They already have. The potential for the "Emerson" case to set a precedent that would dismantle all feral gooberment gun control laws is what inspired Bubba-2 and Janet Ashcroft to file their little notice to the Supreme Court that all the partisan Bush-Bots spun as "proof" Bubba-2 is pro-2n Amendment. They all cite the part that says the feral gooberment now looks at gun possession as a individual right,and skim right over and ignore the part where the "BUT...." comes in. This is where they make the claim that despite it being a individual right,the feral gooberment reserves to right to "regulate gun ownership/possession with reasonable restrictions". In short,Bubba-2 is claiming it is a inidividual right,as long as the feral gooberment is willing to grant that right to you.

Is there any wonder I call him Bubba-2?

117 posted on 09/20/2002 10:19:17 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Jefferson should have used the word power rather than rights.

Jefferson wasn't a simpleton.

118 posted on 09/20/2002 10:19:22 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Virginia-American
The First was not intended to apply to the states, since there were established churches in some of them. The Second was.

No, at the time it was ratified, the entire BOR was intended to apply only to the federal government. That's clear from every statement made at the time from pretty much everyone on every side of the issue. It was passed at the behest of anti-federalists, who were more or less comfortable with their own state governments, but greatly feared the establishment of a new national government that had what looked like to them, the capacity for unlimited power. They wanted to set some clearly defined limits on what it could and could not do, and they certainly weren't looking to it to protect them from their own state governments.

119 posted on 09/20/2002 10:19:24 AM PDT by inquest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Roscoe is.
120 posted on 09/20/2002 10:21:12 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 441-456 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson