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 ...
A power not specified in the Constitution, at least not very directly, and which they bestowed upon themselves. However all officers of the United States, including the Executive Branch, the Congress, and the Courts, are required to swear to uphold the Constitution. Each can, should and must do so as they understand it, not as 5 old folks in black robes define it.
It's up to Congress, and the State legislatures, not to pass unconstitutional laws, the federal and state executive branches not to enforce or implement them, and the judicial branches to be sure neither does. Of course it's also up to the people not to put up with any unconstitutional monkey buisiness, even if that means using the second amendment as intended, as the "reset button" of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has spoken loud and clear on this subject.
If by this subject, you mean the 2nd amendment applicability to the states, the question becomes when? Especially since the 14th amendment was passed. They've refused to grant cert on many cases which would have allowed them speak if they had taken them, but take them they did not. This refusal has been used as an argument that the law is settled on the matter, but clearly it is not, and they have stated several times that their refusal to grant cert creates no law.
Jefferson wasn't a simpleton.
and just where does the evil.fed.gov get it's power? The consent of the guvernd, at sword-point.
POP QUIZ --
King George sent his troops into the population to:
(a) Stand on street corners with "Will work for food" signs.
(b) Attend a Charity Ball.
(c) Go to church.
(e) Provide volunteer services.
(f) Perform suicide missions by attempting to confiscate guns.
The point being, the Founders wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution so future generations would not have deal with choice (f) again.
Gun control IS confiscation, as it serves the same purpose. It eliminates your ability to deal effectively with those who would confiscate.
Second Amendment or not, the only way to securely guard the free state is for Citizens to have at their disposal, weapons superior, or at the very least, equal to those who pose a domestic threat to that security. Those who pose a domestic threat have granted themselves permission to use an unlimited amount and style of weapons. We, the superior force, also grant ourselves the same permission.
Another issue here, even if the Second Amendment doesn't cover it, is the personal right to bear arms to protect against attacks on your person, which is far more an immediate threat than the threat of invasion. How much more the immediate need and importance of bearing personal weaponry?
Roscoe: Nations have rights, societies have rights, anarchists have noise.121
Zon: 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
Nouns
1 anarchylawlessness, disorder, breakdown of law and order, no authority, interregnum, power vacuum, powerlessness, impotence, disorganization, misgovernment, misrule, unrestraint, unruliness, disruption, irresponsibility, indiscipline, disobedience, insubordination, defiance of authority, arrogation, breakdown of government, chaos, turmoil, mob rule, mob law, lynch law, sedition, subversion, fifth column, revolution, rebellion, guerrilla tactics, the underground, usurpation, abdication, forced resignation, overthrow, coup d'état, coup, dethronement, mutiny, reign of terror, law of the jungle, every man for himself, dog-eat-dog
Cert. Denied is not a decision. It creates no law and nothing is be inferred from it, other than for that individual case, the decision of the court below is left to stand. The Supreme Court can, and does, duck controversial issues this way. They also duck issues were the court is split on the subject.
They argue little else.
Feverish falsehood.
Main Entry: an·ar·chy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"när-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature -- Israel Shenker>
3 : ANARCHISM
Good quote.
Here are some of the more ridiculous claims for words with equivalent, or nearly equal meaning from that source:
disorder, revolution, rebellion, guerrilla tactics, forced resignation
Words must have definite meaning, or the use of them to communicate at all is worthless.
Roscoe: Were those synonyms or definitions? 213
I posted the definition of anarchy in response to spunkets at post 189. Since you're obviously too incompetent to know that it was a definition when it is staring you in the face you are also beyond hope.
Eventually, some state will push gun control or some other form of control to far and the Supreme court will be forced to rule on the issue. It's happened before.
A curious paradox of a conservative Supreme Court, is the strong tendency to not reverse the decisions of state supreme courts. Conservatives believe in state rights.
You MIGHT want to go back and read the posts my own post was addressing so that you have a understanding of the context of my post. Especially the part that makes a distinction between "state" as it applies to the government of the United States,and "state" as a sovereign nation. Then again.......
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.