Texas man sentenced to prison for having gun while under protective order - Emerson

Cleveland Plain Dealer ^ | 1/24/03 | AP

[tpaine]

Incorporation" is not my "red herring". Until USSC changes it's mind, Cruikshank remains the law of the land and the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

Please understand, I'm not advocating the theory of "incorporation". I'm only stating the current interpretation of the law.
-DD-


Why do you support 'cruikshank'? It's an unreasoned, almost throwaway line in a long decision, accepting the RKBA's as an inalienable right, but denying the 2nd, --- as attempt to buttress the 'states rights' position on civil rights for blacks. - Your quote proves my point:

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.

The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

This antiquated view of gun/civil rights was being used at the time to justify 'Jim Crow' laws in southern states, and has been well discredited since.
Why you fellas still support it is beyond all logic.

[tpaine]

tpaine, I'm with DugwayDuke on this one.I am a firm believer in the RKBA, I own guns and practice with them, I have been a dues paying member of the NRA for a number of years, and I vote against those who are running on a platform of gun control.
So when I say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to the states, it's not because of some agenda of mine, it's just a fact. Since Californians have faced that fact, it gives them the incentive to write a RKBA proposition to add to the California state constitution.
Has nothing to do with this thread, but I just wanted to weigh in.
41 -rp-

This 'states rights' view of our constitution that you people support is being used to 'legislate' our rights away under the guise of 'reasonable regulation'.

Such regulations MUST conform to the basic principles of our rights as outlined in the BOR's, which are the clearly the 'law of the land'.
Specious reasoning, as per states rights, by compromised establishment lawyers, judges, & legislators can never change the fact that inalienabe rights exist, they can only infringe upon them with government force.

Thus, you-all are supporting majority rule by government force, -- tyranny. -- Instead of the constitutional rule of law in a free republic.

Rationalize away your position as you will, you cannot refute that tyranny will result from its application, as we see evidenced everywhere today, in the various 'wars' on seemingly every-thing/liberty.

[Teacher317]

How can you stop owning your possessions without selling them?

How can a protective order mandate that a person sell his provately-owned property against his will?

How can one fail to see that this can be easily expanded in some really vicious ways?

[Roscoe]

Advocates of baby-killing and legalized drugs want a federal hegemony.

"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." -- US Supreme Court, Palko v. State of Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)

"The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." -- US Supreme Court, U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. State of Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws." -- John Adams

[tpaine]

You are rationalizing unconstitutional gun-grabbing with out of context quotes.

For shame, -- you dishonor the founding principles of our free republic.

[Roscoe]

out of context

Beg your falsehoods.

[Dead Corpse]

Roscoe. You keep going in circles with this crap. While legally, you may have the right of it. The gods know our legal system is a gordian knot. But Constitutionally and logically you are screwed.

The Pre-amble to the BOR is all the incorperation it requires. Because pin-heads keep trying to undercut it, they even added a couple of Amendments to try and clarify it for people just like you. Still you refuse to see.

Let's look at it this way. Who owns you? I claim that I have ownership of myself. Keeping myself alive is protecting my "property". Unless you advocate having someone in government breath, eat, and defecate for me, then protecting my life is something very personal that it is my responsibility to see to. A firearm is one of the better tools out there to use for that protection. If you deny me those tools, then you assume ownership and responsibility for me. I don't need your, or anyone elses permission to do so. No permits nor licensing.

As I am NOT you g@dd@mn slave, you can leave my firearms alone. Reasonable restrictions? By whose standard? The Majorities? what if the Majority decided you needed to die to protect the rest of us? Would you be so sanguine about it then?

[PatrioticAmerican]

#58 - That makes sense.

[tpaine]

Roscoe;

This petty, silly sniping & 'begging' crap has gone on long enough.
How bout a truce? I'll quit, -- you quit. - Deal?

[Roscoe]

The Pre-amble to the BOR is all the incorperation it requires.

False.

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

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 ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

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.

The Constitution delegates powers to the federal government. The Preamble states that the Bill of Rights was written to prevent misconstruction or abuse of those delegated federal powers.

"But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the constitution of the United States, was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen, who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments." -- Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243 1833

[AUgrad]

If men are so selfish, why do women control 80% of the wealth in this country?

Because they control 100% of something else.

[Roscoe]

You'll start backing up your assertions with sources?

That'll be the day.

[hopespringseternal]

How can a protective order mandate that a person sell his provately-owned property against his will?

The fact that 97 senators voted for this crap is proof positive that laws are anything but rational. This is simply 97 senators running to the rescue of the anecdotal damsel in distress.

It makes no sense, but the first one to point that out has a dozen anti-gun reporters shoving a camera in their face and demanding, "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

[Dead Corpse]

"and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution."

Implied incorperation no matter what your legal fictions implies in their penumbras. Or did you miss that whole part of my post?

Either way, you advocate slavery for us all, even if only by degrees. Or will you deny that as well? What else would you call it if not slavery?

[Roscoe]

Implied incorperation

Beg that question.

[Dead Corpse]

Answer my other one... ARE YOU A SLAVE?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Because they control 100% of something else.

That's pretty bigoted of you. It's okay to bigoted against men though, isn't it?

[Dead Corpse]

Also, if it ratified by the individual States then those State legislatures approve of the measure. If not, why would they have voted in the affirmative.

Not begging in anyone's mind other than a gun-grabbing socialist like yourself.

[AUgrad]

That's pretty bigoted of you. It's okay to bigoted against men though, isn't it?

I didn't mean it to be bigoted. I see it as simply an observation of fact.

[Chemist_Geek]

There is a "balancing test" with RKBA, just like all other rights. To say otherwise damages RKBA.

Hear, hear!