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 ...
Wrong again.
"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... 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" -- Barron v. Baltimore
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
Senator Pardek: 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! 276
Zon: 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?" 288
If you want to play word games, okay. States have powers, not rights.
It's not a word game. I wasn't playing. It is you that obfuscated in your replies.
Now would you be so kind as to answer the question I posed to you?
Absolutely not! You chose to obfuscate in your previous posts rather than acknowledge a basic fact. You don't deserve my respect -- you have to earn it by being honest. Correcting ones own errors heads the list.
Which right was that?
You're wrong on the basics.
Read a book.
Indeed it did. However this is not an uncommon state of affairs. The 1st amendment doesn't define "freedom of the press", nor "free speech". Thus the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, must set the definition of those terms. They, the Supreme Court, have not even addressed the issue of whether the second amendment defines one of those "immunities" that the stats may not abridge. Those that maintain that the "priveleges and immunities" protected by the 14th amendment do not include those originally protected from federal infringement by the first eight amendments must answer the question, "Ok, then what are those "priveleges and immunities"? One rule of Constitutional construction is that no passage is without meaning. Another is to look to the record of legislative proceedings to determine what lawmakers, and in the case of an amendment the state legislatures, believed or stated that the passage in question meant. Someday, bye and bye, the Supreme Court will address the question, but they have not done so, at least with regards to the RKBA. Those portions that they have "incorporated" have mainly been done through the "due process and equal protections clauses, not the "priveleges and immunities" clause. The real problem is that early precidents were set by judges of the Confederate persuasion, who didn't really accept the 14th amendment as part of the Constitution at all, thus they attempted to say that only privleges "granted" in the Constitution were protected from state action, but ignored the immunites part. They even applied that argument to the first amendment, in fact in the very same case where they applied it to the second. Subsequent courts have overturned the first amendment parts, but only going around the early rulings via either due process or equal protection. The Court hardly ever aknowledges that an earlier Court was just plain wrong.
I took back would I said and stated that the states have the power to pass gun control laws (even though you knew darn well that's what I meant in the first place).
So why are you stalling? What are you afraid of?
The right to decide which substances should be prohibited. There is no legal authority for the federal government to proclaim a substance to be illegal. They may control, regulate, and tax goods involved in interstate commerce, but they cannot issue a defacto prohibition of those goods. To do so, they'd need a Constitutional Amendment as in the 18th Amendment. As there is no such Amendment in relation to "controlled substances", the Controlled Substances Act is illegal.
The state of California hasn't been forced to prohibit marijuana.
Further, Proposition 215 explicitly stated that "Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for nonmedical purposes."
Why are you afraid to answer my question?
Not afraid of those I don't respect.
I took back would I said and stated that the states have the power to pass gun control laws (even though you knew darn well that's what I meant in the first place).
Yes, you finally corrected your error. I knew you made a basic error. That's what I knew when I read your original comment. One of two things occurred: you knew that states don't have rights when you wrote your original comment, then when I pointed it out your error to you, you chose to obfuscate rather than correct your error, or 2) you didn't know that states don't have rights.
So why are you stalling? What are you afraid of?
I'm not stalling. I already said I would "Absolutely not!" answer your question.
"Absolutely not! You chose to obfuscate in your previous posts rather than acknowledge a basic fact. You don't deserve my respect -- you have to earn it by being honest. Correcting ones own errors heads the list." -- Zon 343
I don't care if you respect me or not - this is a web forum; we're not married.
However I must give you credit - never before have I seen "I don't respect you" used on the Internet as an excuse to not answer a question - LOL!
The PEOPLE of this Nation have been forced to swallow a federal prohibition without due process of a Constitutional Amendment.
There is more to the Controlled Substances Act than prohibition against interstate transportation...
From Controlled Substances Act:
§ 844. Penalties for simple possession.
(a) Unlawful acts; penalties
It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess a controlled substance unless such substance was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice, or except as otherwise authorized by this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter. Any person who violates this subsection may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 1 year, and shall be fined a minimum of $1,000, or both, except that if he commits such offense after a prior conviction under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or a prior conviction for any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the law of any State, has become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 15 days but not more than 2 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $2,500, except, further, that if he commits such offense after two or more prior convictions under this subchapter or subchapter II of this chapter, or two or more prior convictions for any drug or narcotic offense chargeable under the law of any State, or a combination of two or more such offenses have become final, he shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for not less than 90 days but not more than 3 years, and shall be fined a minimum of $5,000. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a person convicted under this subsection for the possession of a mixture or substance which contains cocaine base shall be imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 20 years, and fined a minimum of $1,000, if the conviction is a first conviction under this subsection and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 5 grams, if the conviction is after a prior conviction for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection becomes final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 3 grams, or if the conviction is after 2 or more prior convictions for the possession of such a mixture or substance under this subsection become final and the amount of the mixture or substance exceeds 1 gram. The imposition or execution of a minimum sentence required to be imposed under this subsection shall not be suspended or deferred. Further, upon conviction, a person who violates this subsection shall be fined the reasonable costs of the investigation and prosecution of the offense, including the costs of prosecution of an offense as defined in sections 1918 and 1920 of title 28, except that this sentence shall not apply and a fine under this section need not be imposed if the court determines under the provision of title 18 that the defendant lacks the ability to pay.
However I must give you credit - never before have I seen "I don't respect you" used on the Internet as an excuse to not answer a question - LOL!
Wrong again. It's not an excuse. It's an honest principle. Try it next time. BTW, interesting that you laugh. Albeit, you didn't know the honest principle underlying my action.
IMO, you finally corrected your error in hopes that I would answer your question -- you didn't correct your error out of respect for yourself nor respect for me.
You squandered an opportunity. Perhaps next time you'll do better.
However I must give you credit - never before have I seen "I don't respect you" used on the Internet as an excuse to not answer a question - LOL!
I didn't write "I don't respect you". I did write, "You don't deserve my respect -- you have to earn it by being honest. Correcting ones own errors heads the list."
The slate is clean at the start and I respect the person I'm responding to. It is up to them whether they can maintain that respect.
Not really - for we both are aware that you have no choice but to answer "yes" to my question (assuming you answer truthfully) or hide behind the rubric of "not respecting" an anonymous person on the Internet.
You've been one of the easier folks I've cornered and exposed on this forum...
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.