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 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 441-456 next last
To: Zon
Nations have rights, societies have rights, anarchists have noise.
121 posted on 09/20/2002 10:22:48 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
most of the federal apperatus would go out of business. Millions out on the streets with no job.

Not only that,but out on the street with no known job skills other than asking,"Will there be fries with that,Sir?". Well,I guess a few of them could become non-civil-service pimps,or bar hustlers who hang out on the street and try to talk people into going in the bars.

122 posted on 09/20/2002 10:23:27 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Very telling that you fail to mention the only thing that does have rights -- the individual.

Anarchists detest the government upholding and protecting individual rights and private property rights.

123 posted on 09/20/2002 10:27:41 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
The right of individuals to follow their own religion may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to manadate which church the people may attend.

How about abortion? Does a state have the right now to ban it and Roe v Wade means nothing? Or how about slavery. There is a constitutiional amendedment prohibiting it, but does this yahoo think that states can simply ignore that prohibition?

124 posted on 09/20/2002 10:29:10 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
The 14th binds the states to the bill of rights.
125 posted on 09/20/2002 10:29:54 AM PDT by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period.

WRONG! You are confusing the "power" or the "ability" with the "right". It's not the same thing.

126 posted on 09/20/2002 10:30:04 AM PDT by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Anarchists detest the government upholding and protecting individual rights and private property rights.

Yes, Libertarianism would be destructive of those rights.

127 posted on 09/20/2002 10:30:34 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: weikel
The 14th binds the states to the bill of rights.

"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)

128 posted on 09/20/2002 10:32:00 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
WRONG! You are confusing the "power" or the "ability" with the "right". It's not the same thing.

"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

"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

129 posted on 09/20/2002 10:35:36 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Why do you think your state can deny you the right to a jury trial in traffic court?

Because it is not a criminal charge which is the only time a defendent has a constitutional right to a jury trial.

130 posted on 09/20/2002 10:37:08 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You've upheld my expectations of you once again. I've come to expect you to lie through your teeth. BTW, for the "hundredth" time, I'm not a Libertarian.
131 posted on 09/20/2002 10:39:52 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: The Unnamed Chick
I love this exerpted from on ot the referanced article's.

"DeMoss also raised a "critical" 10th Amendment issue, the report said.

"I have a 12 gauge and 16 gauge shotgun and a .30 caliber deer rifle in my closet at home. Can you tell me how those affect interstate commerce?" the judge asked prosecutors.

According to the report, Judge Robert M. Parker, a Carter appointee who was moved to the appellate court by President Clinton, told the government, "I don't want you to lose any sleep over this, but Judge Will Garwood (the senior judge) and I between us have enough guns to start a revolution in most South American countries." "

Kinda got the wrong Judge did they?

132 posted on 09/20/2002 10:40:49 AM PDT by ItsTheMediaStupid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon
I'm not a Libertarian.

If quacks like a duck...

133 posted on 09/20/2002 10:41:00 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: inquest
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.

Is that so? Then what did they mean by Article VI?

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.


134 posted on 09/20/2002 10:43:43 AM PDT by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
You're only the second person on the Internet that I've come across that doesn't have an original thought of their own.
135 posted on 09/20/2002 10:44:40 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Bill Lockyer is just another big mouth lefty fool piping up the party line. The man is not a moron, but he is close. He is, however, a hypocrit and a liar, since he knows that what he says about the state of California not having to abide by the Bill of Rights (vis a vis the 2nd) since those rights are not stated in the California Constitution is a load of BS.

Since his party controls ALL politics in the state, if he really thinks his postion has a rock-solid Constitutional/legal basis, then he should be working with his fellow RATS to pass a bill outlawing the TOTAL sale and possession of ALL guns in the state of California. I browsed through my local gun shop the other day, and if I had had the money, I would have put it down for a new Sig 245. And Lockyer's DOJ would have rubber-stamped my purchase request, just like they have done for the past four years every time I bought another gun.

To hell with Lockyer and his delusional vision of tyrannical grandeur.

136 posted on 09/20/2002 10:45:02 AM PDT by 45Auto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Ditto
Because it is not a criminal charge

In California, there are three (3) types of criminal offenses; they are defined as follows:

Infraction: An infraction is a minor offense such as a traffic violation, and can only be punished with a fine.

Misdemeanor: A misdemeanor is a criminal offense that can be punished by up to one (1) year in jail, a fine of $1,000 or both. Examples of misdemeanors are such things as DUI without injury, petty theft, battery, and disturbing the peace.

Felony: A felony is a more serious criminal offense. Felonies carry with them the possibility of a fine of up to $10,000.00 as well as incarceration in the State Prison system for many years. Numerous felonies require registration as narcotics or sex offenders and carry with them severe disabilities in future life.

http://www.allen-ehrle.com/f_a_q.htm

137 posted on 09/20/2002 10:45:24 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Call me what you like for it is as irrelevant as you.
138 posted on 09/20/2002 10:46:14 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention; Jeff Head; Joe Brower; Squantos; harpseal; PatrioticAmerican; wardaddy; ...
The only opinion that matters is the Supreme Court of the United States. It and it alone interprets what the Constitution says. They cannot be wrong. They are infalliable. The Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear on this subject.

What a stinking steaming load of rancid horse crap.

Do you really believe that?

If one party managed to "pack" the court, or they were secretly threatened by terrorists or a secret gestapo, or someone put LSD in their water, and they declared it constitutional to exterminate a given minority, you would salute and drop the Zyklon-B down the vent into the gas chambers? Because 5 people said it was constitutional?

Do you really believe what you wrote, or are you just a disruptor?

139 posted on 09/20/2002 10:46:23 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Unfortunately, there are plenty of folks on the Internet who constantly assert baseless and ignorant opinions.
140 posted on 09/20/2002 10:47:56 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 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