TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Mercuria
An interview with MICHELE MALKIN!
Click HERE to listen LIVE!
Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!
Of course, the NYT probably wouldn't mind characterizing any progun legislation that way.
144c This right already existed. Maryland and Virginia had such provisions in their constitutions when the Constitutional Convention sat, as do all States at this time. These are prohibitions binding upon the States to preclude infringement of this right of the people by each of the individual States. State constitutions and laws may have conditions established which govern, but any conditions which are in opposition to this amendment are nullities and void. From the Father of the Constitution himself, the words of James Madison . . .
"The proposition of amendment made by Congress, is introduced in the following terms. "The Convention of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstructions 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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institutions."
Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof, that the several amendments proposed were to be considered as either declaratory or restrictive; and whether the one or the other, as corresponding with the desire expressed by a number of the States, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the government.
Under any other construction of the amendment relating to the [right to keep and bear arms], than that it declared the [right to keep and bear arms] to be wholly exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the ground of public confidence in the government." --- James Madison, REPORT OF 1799 on the Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions
The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of the tyranny and treason of a run-away governmental bureaucracy and had a very PRIMARY reason for the inclusion of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. We shall let them speak for themselves:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence. From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." -- George Washington, Commanding General of the Continental Army, Father of Our Country and First President of the United States, Address to the 2nd Session, 1st Congress, 1789."The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and President of the United States.
"The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. -- James Madison, principal author of Constitution, principal writer of The Federalist Papers, President of the United States, Mainstream Revolutionary and Militant.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Member of the Constitutional Convention, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
"It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." -- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
And why exactly should a violation of a Mexican law be a felony in the US ???
It's not like those twerps down south are respecting any of our laws.
Sadly this is probably a good call, regardless of the merits of the case. It's only been a few decades that convicted felons were prohibited from owning firearms (at the federal level), 1968 IIRC. many states used to allow convicted felons to posses firearms, although sometimes on limited basis. IIRC, the provision denying funds for revue of injustices, such as this case, was one of those added at the last minute and nobody read it type amendments, and now all the polititudes are scared sh*tless to oppose the prohibition.
Bean, a well-known businessman, was convicted of violating Mexican law after officers found 200 rounds of bullets in his car during a dinner trip across the border four years ago.
Two hundred rounds of bullets? Trust the press to totally mess up anything regarding firearms and ammunition. Either 200 rounds, or 200 bullets. Something that is not a crime in the US, at least in Texas where Bean lives, that is possession of 200 rounds of plain vanilla ammuntion, gets your Constitutional rights suspended forever? I guess so. The justice system no longer has any justice in it, just laws and regulations and no common sense at all.
Yes, and so many ways to become a "felon", with new ones on the way with each session of congress.
This case typifies why I can not support Project Exile.
Well, Mr. Nose-chunk there's a real problem with this, because the statue exists in federal law; merley defunding it does not negate its existence. The damn Congress should either re-fund this review process, or go on record with their votes and repeal the damn statute. As it is, there are some real big Constitutional questions here.
Somebody should explain to this idiot that Constitutional RIGHTS aren't granted by a office of government.
Thomas said the ATF, not a judge, was best prepared to look into whether an applicant could be a danger to public safety.
Does this idiot also think that RIGHTS are determined by a Committee for Public Safety"? Does he think this is France during the French Revolution?
The justices rejected Bean's argument that the government's inability to act amounted to a denial.
Of course they did. Heaven forbid that any of these ball less political hacks make a actual non-PC decision that supports the US Constitution.
The Bush administration had argued against Bean,
Of course they have. The ball less statists who are afraid of freedom got together and elected their king,and they call him "President Bush".
despite the Justice Department's stance that the Constitution guarantees a right to gun ownership.
This is NOT the sorta-Justice Department stand on the 2nd Amendment,and it is NOT the stand of the Bubba-2 White House. What Janet Ashcroft wrote was "that while the 2nd Amendment is a individual right,the federal government reserves the right to regulate reasonable restrictions on who can own guns,and what type of guns they can own." In other words,according to the Bubba-2 administration,you have a Constitutional Right to own guns as long as they are willing to allow you to own them,and as long as you only want to own the ones they are willing to ALLOW you to have. For some reason the second part of this never gets mentioned.
The National Rifle Association did not file arguments in the case,
Of course not. Even the Gun Control Act of 1968 had the NRA stamp of approval,and it's current president is on record as stating he "hate AK-47's,and see no reason for anyone TO BE ALLOWED TO OWN THEM".
but other gun rights supporters backed Bean. Mathew Nosanchuk, litigation director for the pro-gun control Violence Policy Center, predicted the court's decision will end an effort to give felons gun rights.
Somebody needs to tell Mr Nosanchuk that the feral gooberment has no more legal authority to GIVE Mr Bean rights than they had to take them away. If the gooberment can take it away,it is NOT a right. It's a privledge.
Further,someone needs to highlight the FACT that it wasn't a violation of federal law for convicted felons to own guys prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968. That is because it was recogonized that doing such a thing would be un-Constitutional. These conntrol-freak shills used the emotion resulting from the murders of the Kennedy's and MLK Jr to slide this under the door,and nobody has the guts to stand up to them.
TONIGHT! 6pm PDT/9pm EDT Unspun With AnnaZ and Mercuria
An interview with MICHELE MALKIN!
Click HERE to listen LIVE!
Call in! 1-868-RadioFR!