Posted on 12/09/2002 10:53:07 AM PST by 45Auto
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:41:30 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
There is a point about this phrase also, and it dovetails nicely with the courts going around bending the Constitution.
You do know that "Congress shall make no law ... establishing a religion" means that a high school football coach can't lead his team in a prayer before a game, right?
A. Try to exercise your Constitutional rights, especially the 2nd Amendment.
The Charters of Freedom
The Declaration of Independence The Constitution The Bill of Rights
The Bill of Rights
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.
On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.
When you read the first ten amendments to the constitution, it is clear that in each and every one referring to "the people" that it is the powers of government that are being curtailed. The rights of individual citizens are preserved as superior to those of the state.
The 2nd no different from the others...
Yeah that is why they stopped dinner prayers at VMI too right?
But if you want to take that a step further, then you could argue that say NEA is using public dollars to "establish" the Liberal/Atheist "religion". Maybe we should sue them? Seems only fair :)
<-- Chronological --> | Find | <-- Thread --> |
-Caveat Lector- http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL www.sfgate.com Return to regular view Showdown looming on right to own guns Assault weapons ban upheld, putting court at odds with Ashcroft Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer Friday, December 6, 2002 ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/12/06/MN211218.DTL A federal appeals court upheld California's ban on military-style assault weapons Thursday, ruling that individuals have no constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution's Second Amendment preserves only the right of states to organize and maintain militias, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled in a 3-0 decision. The ruling put the court at odds with the Bush administration and a decision last year by a federal appeals court in New Orleans. The amendment "was adopted to ensure that effective state militias would be maintained, thus preserving the people's right to bear arms," wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. "The amendment was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession." STAGE SET FOR HIGH COURT ACTION The ruling paves the way for the controversial issue to be addressed by the nation's highest court, which has not touched the topic since 1939. "When you have something like the Ninth Circuit, the largest judicial federal circuit in the country, coming out with a ruling like this, it means we're within a couple years of it coming before the Supreme Court," said Peter Keane, dean of the Golden Gate University Law School. "Because it's a hot issue, the Supreme Court hasn't wanted to deal with it." The state Legislature passed the nation's most sweeping assault weapons ban in 1989, outlawing 75 high-powered weapons that have rapid-fire capabilities. The ban was expanded in 1999 to include copycat weapons with similar features. The original version was upheld by the state Supreme Court in 2000, when it was challenged by a group of gun rights activists who said the ban violated the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause and several other constitutional provisions. Reinhardt said he concluded that the Second Amendment cannot be used to strike down the ban after a lengthy analysis of the amendment's history and text. The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." His interpretation of the amendment's intent matched that of the federal government's before Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote a letter to the National Rifle Association in May. In the letter, Ashcroft declared that the Second Amendment protected the individual right to bear arms. The Justice Department took that position formally in a U.S. Supreme Court filing a year later, saying the right was subject to "reasonable restrictions" on certain types of weapons and categories of owners. Ashcroft's views were endorsed by a federal appeals court in New Orleans in October 2001. Despite concluding that the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms, the court upheld a federal law banning gun possession by people under restraining orders for domestic violence. Because the issue has become so debated, Reinhardt chose to address it with a comprehensive opinion instead of relying on a similar decision rendered by the court six years ago. Matthew Nosanchuk, senior litigation counsel for the Violence Policy Center in Washington, told the Los Angeles Times that the 86-page ruling was one of the most comprehensive ever written on the Second Amendment. "This is a very important contribution that should drive a stake through the heart of the individual rights position," Nosanchuk said. RULING REJECTS 9 CHALLENGES In Thursday's decision, Reinhardt expressly disagreed with the Second Amendment interpretations by Ashcroft and the New Orleans court. He also noted that the San Francisco court, which oversees federal courts in nine Western states, had ruled in 1996 that the Constitution does not protect individual gun ownership. The ruling rejected challenges to the law by nine gun owners. The court then went a step further and broadened the law by striking down an exemption that allowed retired police officers to own assault weapons, ruling that it served no public purpose. The NRA expressed disappointment with the ruling. "For 131 years, we've been standing steadfastly to protect the freedoms of all law- abiding Americans and stand steadfastly that the Second Amendment is an individual right and will continue to do so," spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said. Chronicle news services contributed to this report. / E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko@sfchronicle.com. ©2002 San Francisco Chronicle. Page A - 1 <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of CTRL@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM</A> http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/ <A HREF="http://archive.jab.org/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] LISTSERV@LISTSERV.AOL.COM Om
<-- Chronological --> | <-- Thread --> |
Isn't this the group that "shared" (free) office space with the Million Mom March, not mention officers and staff?
Even Art. 10 doesn't mention state rights, but rather powers reserved to the states or to the people. States, including the United States, have only powers, people have rights and powers.
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.