Court Upholds State Assault Weapons Ban

Los Angeles Times ^ | 12/6/2002 | Henry Weinstein

[tpaine]

. Following the Civil War, the Southern States reenacted the slave codes which made it illegal for blacks to exercise basic civil rights, including the possession of firearms. Congress responded by passing the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866, which provided:
the right . . . to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings concerning personal liberty, personal security, and the acquisition, enjoyment, and disposition of estate, real and personal, including the constitutional right to bear arms, shall be secured to and enjoyed by all the citizens of such State or district without respect to race or color or previous condition of slavery.
14 Statutes at Large 176-77 (1866). This was approved by the same votes of over two-thirds of members of Congress who voted in favor of the Fourteenth Amendment. Senator Jacob Howard, when introducing the Amendment, explained that its purpose was to protect "personal rights" such as "the right to keep and bear arms" from State infringement. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 2765 (May 23, 1866). See "The Civil Rights and Freedmen's Bureau Acts and the Proposal of the Fourteenth Amendment," in Halbrook, Freedmen, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Right to Bear Arms.


More info on the 14th and the 2nd -- thanks to JW07:

Stephen Halbrook, John Ashcroft and the second amendment
77 posted on 12/06/2002 6:24 PM PST by jwalsh07

[Dog Gone]

Suppose, however, that a contract contains provisions whereby a certain subset of the original signers can make amendments to it, but with certain exceptions. Would not the removal of those exceptions require unanimous consent, as distinct from the subset consent required of other changes?

I'm only applying general contract law, of course, but the answer is a qualified no. If the Constitution had been drafted perfectly (and no document which has been the source of negotiation ever is), it would have provided that any amendment regarding the representation of states requires 100% approval of the voting bodies. That would have been enforceable, and would have effectively prevented any amendment, of course.

Since we have effectively decided that the Constitution is whatever the current Supreme Court says it is, my general proposition might or might not be accepted by the Court.

I'll tell you how I would rule as a Justice, though. I'd rule that the Constitution means what it says, and that your position that it can't be amended is the way it shall be. In some ways, the President isn't the most powerful person in this country. It's the person who is the swing vote on the Court.

[Rome2000]

Congress responded by passing the Freedmen's Bureau Act of 1866,

Wasn't that the original dreaded "Republican Congress"?

[tpaine]

"If states can violate inalienable rights, then there are no inalienable rights and the Constitution is a fraud." -JW07-

Exactly, it's amazing that such a simple, logical concept is so hard for so many 'conservatives' here at FR to accept, isn't it?

Perhaps some of them should look to their self-styled image.

[Dog Gone]

Not to quibble, but would an amendment repealing the 2nd, be an "infringment" and thus repugnant and void?

It really doesn't matter what I think. It would be void if the Supreme Court said it was void, although it's inconceivable to me that they'd ever rule that way.

tpaine is trying to argue that it would be void, I think, but it's a silly argument because his opinion doesn't count, either. It's a little more reasonable to argue what the Supreme Court might decide, but I think if a Constitutional Amendment is validly passed requiring us all to convert to some awful religion, then that's the deal. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and the choice is whether or not to defy it, but not whether to pretend that it's not the law.

[tpaine]

Why would you, [or anyone] support such a view of our founding principles, of our constitution? Why do you want state governments to have control over constitutional liberties, and our individual rights? -tpaine -

"Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, states did exist as largely independent entities which had their own constitutions (generally including bills of rights), but which had control over individual rights subject to the limits expressed in those constitutions.
Since the states were presumed to have authority over their people, ---"
-SC-


We part company here. I see no such 'authority' granted to states in our new constitution, which was to be the 'Supreme Law of the Land'.

[Dog Gone]

I am thrilled by this decision by the 9th Circuit. It was so patently bad, and the rationale so goofy, that we could not have asked for a better case to be appealed to the Supremes. This is about as good as we could have hoped for.

[wcbtinman]

One of the great failings we have as citizens of the US is that we place a great amount of faith in an un-questioned authority. I don't necessarily dis-agree with you, but you seem to place a great faith in that the USSC could never be wrong.

They have been, and relatively frequently.

[tpaine]

Wasn't that the original dreaded "Republican Congress"? -R2000-


Yep. -- They were intent on correcting some wrongs that lead to a bloody civil war. -- Basically, they failed. - The 14th was ignored for years. -- Let us hope it can help us save the 2nd now.

[tpaine]

You say:

"I think if a Constitutional Amendment is validly passed requiring us all to convert to some awful religion, then that's the deal."

Or, in other words:

'I think if a Constitutional Amendment is validly passed requiring us all to turn in our guns, then that's the deal.'

Good grief.

[Mr. Mojo]

Does this mean that town and county police forces can't carry guns?

Nope, only us peons.

[Mr. Mojo]

Good grief.

You can say that again. If such a constitutional amendment actaully did pass, it would be the solemn duty of patriotic Americans to overthrow the current government at the time.

[Dog Gone]

One of the great failings we have as citizens of the US is that we place a great amount of faith in an un-questioned authority. I don't necessarily dis-agree with you, but you seem to place a great faith in that the USSC could never be wrong.

Then I haven't made myself clear. The Supreme Court can be wrong. They are usually right, but there are any number of decisions that I think are bad law, regardless of the merits of the case.

What I am arguing is only that they are the final word, right or wrong.

[Dog Gone]

What are you going to do if the Supreme Court rules that way? Appeal to a higher authority??

That would be the deal, whether you claim it's void or not. There will be nothing you can do at that point except comply or defy.

I am stating the obvious. Over and over again, I might add.

[tpaine]

"If such a constitutional amendment actaully did pass, it would be the solemn duty of patriotic Americans to overthrow the current government at the time."

I think what would happen, for instance, if the USSC would side with the 9th circuit as above;
-- we would see massive civil disobedience, far surpassing that experienced in 'prohibition' days.
-- Cops wouldn't enforce gun laws, juries wouldn't convict, and the black market in guns would surpass the one on drugs. One would think the gun grabbers would realise this, but there seems to be no limit to government stupidity.

[tpaine]

You seem to be oblivious to the obvious.
-- We the people, - individual people, with individual rights, -- rule in this free republic.

[Mr. Mojo]

Perhaps the gun-grabbers believe that we'd willingly hand in our guns like the British did ....like sheep.

[tpaine]

"Perhaps the gun-grabbers believe that we'd willingly hand in our guns like the British did ....like sheep."


Far too many FReepers apparently believe that is our only option.
- Comment DG? Bootie?

[Dog Gone]

You are an idealist, so I forgive you. But you are blind to the realpolitik of your life. Your individual rights are only what others recognize them to be. Your own opinion doesn't mean squat as long as others with badges and big guns and the courts behind them disagree.

We may elect rulers, but we don't rule.

[CharacterCounts]

If certain rights are fundamental and the Constitution only enumerates those rights, wouldn't it be true that those rights are not subject to constitutional amendments? By enumerating those rights, the Constitution admits that it is subordinate to those fundamental rights.