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 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 441-456 next last
To: Travis McGee
Oh man, you mean Roscoe is getting all hot and bothered excited by this? That is so sick.
161 posted on 09/20/2002 11:09:32 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
That is what the 14th Amendment was supposed to have done.

But the issue is still up in the air regarding the 14th's effect on the 2nd Amendment.

And please read the 2 Supreme Court decisions on the 6th Amendment right to "trial by jury". In these cases the USSC ruled that the 14th Amendment does NOT compel the states to apply the 6th Amendment -- only in "serious" cases.

To read these cases, use: www.FindLaw.com
then click on U.S. Supremme Court, then do a search (by case name or case number).

162 posted on 09/20/2002 11:09:54 AM PDT by JackIV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: JackIV
That is what the 14th Amendment was supposed to have done.

Nope.

163 posted on 09/20/2002 11:10:52 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
There are still three seperate branches of our system is there not ? Judicial, Executive,Legislative......

This persons statement was just one more turd in the FR punch bowl......

Stay Safe !

164 posted on 09/20/2002 11:10:52 AM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
[Anarchists detest the government upholding and protecting individual rights and private property rights.]

Yes, Libertarianism would be destructive of those rights.

How so?

165 posted on 09/20/2002 11:11:22 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy
They haven't yet seen the final court of apeal, under Rule .308, the reason the 2nd amendment was but into the BOR.
166 posted on 09/20/2002 11:11:36 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Yep.
167 posted on 09/20/2002 11:13:27 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Exactly! Great points.

When we stop reading and believing the simple words of the constitution, and rely instead on gnomish "experts" and government toadies to interpret it for us, then we will be lost.

168 posted on 09/20/2002 11:13:28 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
A turd indeed, like those judges who found every move by Hitler and Stalin legal within their constitutions.
169 posted on 09/20/2002 11:15:14 AM PDT by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Libertarianism subordinates laws to its nebulous "principles". Property rights under a Libertarian system would lose the fixed protections of the law, and conflicting claims would be adjudicated by the ad hoc and unpredictable application of those "principles". It's difficult to imagine anything more destructive of property rights and stable ownership.

"It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property for the moment of him who occupies it, but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson

170 posted on 09/20/2002 11:18:18 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Zon
"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)


171 posted on 09/20/2002 11:19:43 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; Travis McGee
Good post at 160, harpseal. You too Travis, at 168.

In each person's life internal authority takes precedence over external authority. That some people choose to sacrifice their own authority to external authority is always a net negative/loss to themselves and society.

172 posted on 09/20/2002 11:20:01 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
Article VI, Para 2 disputes your reasoning, unless you don't believe the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution. The supreme law of the land over-rides any thing in state's constitutions which are not in pursuance to the Bill of Rights. If bearing arms is a recognized right at the federal level, states cannot be contrary to it.

Even if there were no Second Amendment, the right to live and the means to protect your life is an un-numerated right shared by all humans.. Even animals have fangs.

173 posted on 09/20/2002 11:20:12 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments."

I for one will not let my state(ca) decide that the federal government does not pose a threat to me.

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.

Except,of course you must by federal law file an income tax return.

"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." -

Then why didn't the drafters start the second amendment like the first,i.e.,Congress shall make no law...?

The right to defend one's self inures with being,it is not granted by ANY government entity.It may not be rescinded by ANY gov't entity,congress,board of supes,Scotus,none.You can cite case law til you're blue in the face.

174 posted on 09/20/2002 11:21:12 AM PDT by kennyo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: The Unnamed Chick
The Constitution, written and ratified by blood, sweat and tears, says we can "bare arms". But one California Attorney General Bill Lockyer says he can do what ever he wishes.

Assemble

175 posted on 09/20/2002 11:27:53 AM PDT by aSkeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kennyo
Then why didn't the drafters start the second amendment like the first,i.e.,Congress shall make no law...?

The Bill of Rights was enacted for the purpose of declaring already understood limitations on the powers the Constitution granted to the federal goverment.

States don't derive their powers from the United States Constitution, the Constitution is their delegation of enumerated powers to the federal government.

176 posted on 09/20/2002 11:28:07 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
Libertarianism subordinates laws to its nebulous "principles".

I don't agree. Certainly, some laws would be subsumed by those general principles, but how is that any different than the fact that laws now can be said to reflect, for lack of a better term, "American" principles? Perhaps an example might better help me see what you're getting at.

177 posted on 09/20/2002 11:28:32 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
" And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world." -- John Locke"

The Locke quote logically validates mob rule also.

All of the quotes you've presented here have been cut to limit their extent to logically justify any rule including the present govm't in Iraq. The people there do will it to continue you know, there is effective opposition. That's amazing, since it does lie in the lands of Allah and the world of jihad. If the people don't will it, how come the jihadists aren't active there? Is the govm't of Iraq a just form of govm't, or is it simply justified , because it was established and controlled by an effective majority of freemen?

178 posted on 09/20/2002 11:29:55 AM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe; All

How Judges that Presided Over Jury Trials
for More than a Century Routinely Violate the Constitution --
Clearing the Way for Advancing a Leviathan Government

"As a practical matter, I don't know how this is different from the beginning of a trial, when you tell the jurors you have to follow the law as I state it," Warren said. "I just won't give [the disapproved instruction]." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other

The above statement in bold told to jurors, since 1894 has been in violation of each Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.[1]  The Sixth Amendment reads:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed..."

Prior to 1894 judges routinely told jurors that they were to judge the facts and the law. ...And the law. For the defendant, a jury that judges the law upholds the defendant's right to a jury that is not partial for the government. It is the defendant's right to have a jury that judges the law as well as the facts.

To judge all facts in the case includes judging the most critical fact -- that a person was charged with breaking a certain and specific law or laws. Without that there can be no case to take to trial. It is the primary and most critical fact for which the government makes its case. Pressing criminal charges against a person gets the process in motion. The reason it must be the prosecution that gets the process started is because the suspect/defendant is innocent. Innocent until proven guilty in court.

Thus it was not the person's/defendant's actions that initiated force against any person or their property. For, until the defendant has received the verdict it is not known whether the arresting law enforcement officer acted in self-defense in correctly upholding the law or unknowingly acted with initiation of force while attempting to uphold the law. That is, the LEO making the arrest had reason to believe the person broke the law and then the DA (district attorney) pressed charges against the suspect. Yet the LEO/DA/government don't know for certain that the suspect/defendant broke the law. That detail will be answered by the jury.

What does it mean when the jury's verdict is an acquittal? It means the charges against the defendant were in error. That is, the defendant never broke the law he was charged with breaking. The law has been judged by the jury to have been wrongfully charged against the defendant. The jury says, "No. The law does not apply to the defendant breaking it. The law only applies in that the defendant abided the law." The law has been deemed to have been wrongfully applied -- the law does not apply to the defendant.

Guess what? That's what jury nullification is -- the jury discovers the same thing. That is, with jury nullification the jury decides that the law does not apply to the defendant -- the law had been wrongfully applied.

As per the Sixth Amendment the defendant has the right to an impartial trial wherein the jury judges the law. For there is no way the jury can avoid judging the law. The jury has only two choices, 1) the law was correctly applied/charged against the defendant, or 2) the law was wrongfully applied/charged against the defendant.

It is each judge's job responsibility to ensure that the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights are protected. The primary key to each trial is the laws that the defendant is charged to have violated. It is by way of the facts presented by the prosecution and the defense during the trial that the primary key -- law as charged -- is judged to have been correct or in error. The facts presented by the prosecution and defense are secondary. That's the nature of cause and effect relationships. When one thing cannot exist without the other first being present the first thing is primary and the effect of that is secondary.

It is accepted that the defendant acted in a manner that appeared to have broken the law and was one factor in the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment that the person's actions violated the law. It cannot be misconstrued that the defendant's actions are the primary cause. For the defendant is deemed innocent and only suspected to have broken the law. The primary cause is the LEO's/DA's/government's judgment to set the court process in motion -- not the suspect's actions.

As per the Sixth Amendment an impartial jury favors neither the government nor the defendant.

Each jury that each judge has failed to inform the jury that they are to judge the law as well as the facts as they pertain to the case/trial has caused each of those juries to favor the government over the defendant.

Since 1894 each judge that has presided over jury trials has routinely violated the constitution. Concurrently, each defendant in each of those trials has had his or her Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury violated. ....Violated by the judge presiding over the trial.

"At issue in People v. Engelman, 02 C.D.O.S. 6411, was California Jury Instruction 17.41.1, which judges give before deliberations. It directs jurors to advise the court if they suspect someone is refusing to discuss the evidence or plans to disregard the law." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other

As shown earlier the jury cannot disregard the law for it is the law that is the primary key being judged.

"Unless jurors are informed of their solemn responsibility to report misconduct, I predict that many judgments will be reversed simply because the trial judge never had the opportunity to cure the problem." California Supreme Court Don't Tell Jurors to Rat on Each Other

That is absurdly trivial compared to the fact that virtually every judge presiding over jury trials routinely violates defendants' Sixth Amendment rights. That's a valid reason why many judgments will be reversed. ...Reversed simply because the judge violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury when he or she instructed the jury to favor the government over the defendant. The misconduct originates with the judges violation of each defendant's right to an impartial jury.

* * *

1. "Gray and Shiras (Justices), Dissent: Sparf and Hansen v. U.S., 156 U.S. 51, October Term, 1894. The classic opinion of the two dissenting justices on the case which effectively ended routine instruction of juries in their right to judge both law and fact. The majority ruled that while jurors do have the power to nullify the law, judges need not tell them about it, except in cases where state laws or constitutions specify that jurors must be told."

 

179 posted on 09/20/2002 11:30:04 AM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Trailerpark Badass
Certainly, some laws would be subsumed by those general principles

How far could a Libertarian "judge" carry that? Carte blanche?

180 posted on 09/20/2002 11:31:15 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 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