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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 441-456 next last
To: DugwayDuke; Viva Le Dissention; sneakypete; Travis McGee; Squantos; Lurker; harpseal; joanie-f; ...
I do not care whether it has been "incorporated" or not. I do not take issue with VLD's claim. in that regard.

My point is simple ... the right enumerated by the Constitution to keep and bear arms in defense of myself, my family, our property and our liberty is not granted, conveyed, given, permitted, or in any other way dispensed or dependent on the "state" ... either in the federal or local sense. I will not allow said right to be trampled by any governing body ... period.

When they try to do this, out-right and in general as the state attorney of California emplies ... they will be trodding on dangerous ground and will find out, in the same way that the King of England found it out ... that such a right is unalienable and one to be defended at the cost of life or limb if necessary.

As I said, I do not want that, I work to avoid it and hope it doesn't happen or come to that ... but the key to it not happening is for the right not to be infringed ... not me or mine giving it up.

Those with arms rule. Simple as that. As long as the people as a whole are well armed, they will have the power to govern in this nation ... when it is given up, that form of government will have changed completely to where the tyrants rule and have the power to maintain it.

So, VLD may well be right about the "incorporation" ... but it is not correct to assume that the government holds this right to dispense, revoke, grant or convey something that is not, nor never was the government's to convey. They may try and use the power to force the issue, but they do not have the right. To try and force it will lead to the same circumstances as when the King of England tried to force the self same issue ... with similar results.

To suppose anything different IMHO is to suppose that the very essence of our Republic is shattered without hope of reconstitution ... it is something I will not suppose as long as I have a living breath.

281 posted on 09/20/2002 11:11:22 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
You've been imagining you're a senator too long pardek. I have no idea what your point is, and I doubt you do either.
Go play your loony games elsewhere.
282 posted on 09/20/2002 11:12:37 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
If the SC rules that it is legal for fedgov to search your house for handguns at any time with no proof of wrong doing, where ya gonna go for legal relief?

Why are you afraid to answer that question?

283 posted on 09/20/2002 11:16:13 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
NO ... at that point we petition to God in Heaven using the very logic and intent and methods proscribed by the founders in the Delcaration and by the same means wherein they set the example.

I pray to God it does not come to that, but at that point we will have been forced into the same recourse they took when the government of their day came to take their arms ... which they rightly recognized were their last resort to obtain, keep, vouchsafe and preserve the very rights they later enumerated in the BOR.

Like I say, I pray and work with all energy to avoid it coming to that. I hope it does not.

284 posted on 09/20/2002 11:16:20 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
Like I say, I pray and work with all energy to avoid it coming to that. I hope it does not.

Thank you. (You realize it could - and legally we'd be shafted). Explain that to tpaine.

285 posted on 09/20/2002 11:19:17 PM PDT by Senator Pardek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek
When what is legal has completely usurped what is constitutional ... then truth has become treason and we are left with doing what is constitutional, but what the government will brand as illegal.

Our founders were forced into just this quandry ... before there was a constitution ... but it was written on their hearts and they went forward with faith.

Like I say, I pray and work to avoid it ... I do not desire it, but will not give up those rights. There are fates worse than death ... there are things worth fighting and dying for. It is the American way IMHO. A small group of farmers in Klamath understood this last year and risked all to right just such a wrong.

286 posted on 09/20/2002 11:24:13 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
I just don't get it. Why is it OK for a state take away an individuals right to self defense?

Simple, because that is how the founders viewed this nation i.e. weak federal Government and strong State government. The Feds only became as powerful as it is after the ratification of the 14th amendment. That not only ostensibly applied the BOR to all the states but it also instituted federal supremacy over all state laws. The situation as it stands now is that the Federal government could make the 2nd amendment meaningless by regulating gun ownership out of existence no matter what a state constitution may say. If the founders had intended for the Federal constitution to be the only law in the land then state constitutions would have been disallowed. This nation was founded on the principle of “multiple laboratories of democracy”. You cannot on one had say that the Feds do not have the power to usurp state laws on illegal drugs based on the 10th amendment and then assert that the state cannot regulate the RKBA. It is not a tenable position.

287 posted on 09/20/2002 11:27:10 PM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Senator Pardek

Viva Le Dissention: States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period. 62

Senator Pardek: Unfortunately you are correct, and what you are saying is going over everyone's head. 256

Zon: States don't have rights. It's important to get the basics correct first .264

Senator Pardek: Cut the crap - you're mistaking me for the other ignorant hillbillies around here. 273

Zon: No crap. Just a fact. States don't have rights. That's basic, IMO. Do you agree? 275

Are you prepared to tell me that if the SC rules that people with names that end with an "N" can own firearms (and no one else), it would be illegal?

Would you petition to thbe UN for a new look? LOL!

What's up with he straw man -- I asked you a simple question. "States don't have rights. That's basic, IMO. Do you agree?" 275

288 posted on 09/20/2002 11:42:11 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
You cannot on one had say that the Feds do not have the power to usurp state laws on illegal drugs based on the 10th amendment

State laws on prohibiting 'drugs' are just as unconstitutional as such federal laws. Prohibitions violate due process of law, regardless of the type of government that decreed them. Simple principle you seem unable to understand.

and then assert that the state cannot regulate the RKBA. It is not a tenable position.

States can 'regulate' the public use of weapons. They cannot prohibit lawful use or possession, nor can the feds. We have an inalienable right to possess weapons for self defense.

Learn to live with our constitution 'tex'.
And please, study up on it. Your historical comprehension of it is as faulty as your legal sense.

289 posted on 09/21/2002 12:03:44 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
States can 'regulate' the public use of weapons. They cannot prohibit lawful use or possession, nor can the feds. We have an inalienable right to possess weapons for self defense.

Look up "regulate" some time and then get back to me.

290 posted on 09/21/2002 12:06:03 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 289 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
We both know what 'regulated' means tex.

But thanks for running off, pretending to have made a big point on a silly definition.
291 posted on 09/21/2002 12:12:21 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 290 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Interesting when Leftist slimebags discover State's Rights. Knowing Lockyer, I'd be willing to bet that he has never read the Bill of Rights. Someone else must have skipped to the bottom and read No. 10 to him, conveniently avoiding No. 2!
292 posted on 09/21/2002 12:15:29 AM PDT by cartoonistx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
We both know what 'regulated' means tex.

You obviously don't or you would not be arguing with me.

293 posted on 09/21/2002 12:16:02 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Sure tex, whatever.
294 posted on 09/21/2002 12:17:44 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 293 | View Replies]

To: Viva Le Dissention
States now have to abide by all the amendments. In the past they were not constrained by the 1st amendment but absolutely were by the 2d, 3d, 4th and 5th. The first just addresses Congress "Congress shall pass no law...." The 2d is an absolute prohibition of any "infringements."

You believe a state doesn't have to abide by trail by juries, or can make you incriminate yourself? What constitution are you reading anyway?
295 posted on 09/21/2002 12:19:45 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The founders, a minority from the several States, commented and made claims regarding rights and justifications for the goverment they created. They placed limits on the power govm't could exert. Some of those limits were expressed explicitely in the Bill of Rights.

Federal government.

296 posted on 09/21/2002 12:20:46 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Tpaine it is impossible to debate a man as willfully ignorant of words and their plain meaning as you. I sometimes find it amusing to kick you around a bit but I have no desire tonight. Just go back to sleep.
297 posted on 09/21/2002 12:21:22 AM PDT by Texasforever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: cartoonistx
Yep, its amazing how many leftist slimebags here at FR have discovered they can hang their hats on the 'states rights' dodge.
298 posted on 09/21/2002 12:21:42 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The BOR's only mentioned the federal congress in the 1st

The Constitution was a grant of powers to the federal government. The Bill of Rights was subsequently added to prevent misconstruction of the powers delegated.

Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

PREAMBLE
The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Read a book.

299 posted on 09/21/2002 12:25:20 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
Willful ignorance is the mark of a libertarian True Believer.
300 posted on 09/21/2002 12:26:23 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 297 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 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