Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles
Title: The GOP War on Private Weapons In America
Source:
ZeroGov
URL Source: http://zerogov.com/?p=4048
Published: Jun 1, 2015
Author: Bill Buppert
Post Date: 2015-06-04 05:54:11 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 28107
Comments: 85
Publisher’s Note: I am a resigned life member of the NRA. I am a non-voter. I think the Constitution is a diabolically clever instrument to make a slave people think they are free. I am in favor to the total decriminalization and deregulation of all weapons systems across the Fetid Plain. There is not a weapons law on the books at any level of government in America I support. The only disarmament program I can get behind is all statist badged armed employees should be totally ungunned of all lethal and non-lethal systems until all government police forces are disbanded nation-wide. Things would be sporty, for about an hour. I have confined this analysis to Republican mischief at the Federal level and not the dishonorable disarmament efforts at the state level which deserves their own examination. I also explicitly say private weapons because Republicans have a child-like reverence for the power of the state and provision an unlimited number of arms to government agents of every stripe at the drop of a hat and using someone else’s money. Their undeniable love affair with the warfare state has metastasized into an orgiastic passion for all things badged government agent domestically. -BB “Black men with rifles marched into the state capitol building in Sacramento. In response to that, a bill was passed which became California’s first gun control law and eventually became the model for a national gun control law. So the (Black) Panthers were really the first gun rights movement. And the response to them — which was, by the way, a Republican response, authored by a Republican Congressman and Ronald Regan who was governor at the time…” – Historian Thaddeus Russell [ Editor’s Note: The first weapons prohibition law in California would be in 1854: “On March 21, 1854, Assembly Bill 80 was passed, making the sale of firearms and ammunition to “Indians” a misdemeanor.”] Philosophically, your stance on gun ownership tells me a lot of what your position is on freedom. If you’re a weapons prohibitionist, you tend to be a coercionist and government supremacist. I dedicate this essay to the fruitless enterprise of voting and hope to show the Republicans or friends who are that the Grand Old Politburo is just as anxious as the Democrats to disarm you. Of course, the post-Second American Revolution Democrats have become a party of weapons prohibition but like all apparatchiks they consistently play philosophical whack-a-mole to plug new holes emerging in the totalitarian dike that separates Helots from their freedom. Two left wings of the same predatory bird. At least the Democrats are honest enough about their economically illiterate Orwellian love affair with the Leviathan state since the 1930s. I would suggest that the only difference between the parties is the spelling and nothing else. Both parties are death cults intent on piling on more and more freedom destroying regulations, laws and edicts that smother every ember of freedom that pokes out of the long-dead scorched earth of liberty that the government has firebombed since 1791. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard the limited government apologists mewling about the GOP protection of gun rights and I wish to put that fabrication to rest. The Republicans hate atomistic ownership of weapons as much as the Democrats. Just their consistent hero worship of the cop class and constant fellating of the police state should be enough but it is not. I will destroy the perception in detail. Let’s establish something. You can’t own a thing unless you control it. You don’t own your house even once you pay the mortgage because unless you pay your tribute to local taxing authority, your home will be seized. In America you lease everything from the government and in the case of guns from the Federal government. Unless you managed to be smart and get all your guns off paper and never used a 4473 to buy them, you are on a list. A confiscation list because that is what all registration does. registration just makes the follow-on seizure more bureaucratically efficient. Ask both the holders of gold and German Jews in the 1930s. They were both victims of government seizure via registration. Federal Firearms Licenses (FFL) are simply extensions of the BATFE; gun stores are non-funded field offices of the ATF much like banks are non-funded informant networks that report to the IRS. Interesting that the 4473 is a violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being used to deny the alleged Second Amendment protection. But then again, the Constitution was built to be a predatory doomsday machine to create the largest government the planet has seen in recorded history. The whole notion of the Second Amendment is a sham and a chimera. I’ve spoken on this at length before and won’t bore you with the details here. A conditional right subject to voiding by the mob and their executors in the government is no right at all in any sense. The endless carping and mewling by gun owners and organizations may give the illusion of controlling the debate but the fat lady has already sung. In the sense that a bird doesn’t know what its wings are for since it spent its life in a cage, my notion that I should have free and unrestricted commerce in all weapons to include fully automatic weapons, suppressors, grenades and anything found on the arms market today is received by the Elmer Fudd gun owners as sheer lunacy. Cash and carry, no registration or licensing. None. But…but…but…what about the children as they run screaming to the nearest coproach to inform on their fellow Helot. Again, registration is simply a necessary precondition to confiscation and seizure. As usual, police (the pointy end of political action) antipathy and outright fear towards firearms and the Police Chiefs’ Associations stand behind every major component of disarming legislation coming down the pike is per usual for them. One can see this in the thousands of videos available where cops are frightened and alarmed by any taxpayer with a gun. The atomistic ownership of advanced weapons unregulated and unregistered makes every politicians’ bowels soupy except for a select few one could count on one hand over a span of a hundred years. All statist apparatchiks are deathly afraid of an armed population and always have been. A subject population with firearms that are the equivalent of the armies the government maintains? How absurd. The Grand Old Politburo was built on war, bloodshed and conflict just like the Democratic Party; the GOP cheering on the conflicts created by the Democrats in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. As a political organ, its birth in fire during the Second American Revolution makes it assume that peace is always secondary to the bludgeon. If one doesn’t believe that, excepting the America First movement and Taft, the GOP has been a booster of the warfare state since the end of the War to Save Josef Stalin. Both Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt provided plenty of evidence of bloodthirstiness and imperial ambition during their respective reigns of terror in the Offal Office. While the two models accepted by the government-legal complex in America appear to champion a collective and individualist interpretation, the following survey will prove that the collectivist interpretation has won out. This one endorses the notion that in the end only the government has the right to own and regulate weapons without question. How anything beyond an individual can have rights, I don’t know but that is part of what ails the American Orwellian state. In a future essay, I will examine the perfidy and evil the government demonstrated until 1934 to close the loop on that particularly ignored part of firearms history. For the sake of keeping the evidence temporal to Republican distaste for civilian gun ownership in the last eighty years, we’ll concentrate our efforts there. Once the Volstead Act was repealed in December of 1933, the government was desperate to find a way to keep their newly minted police powers and legions of G-men employed to enforce Prohibition so the 1934 National Firearms Act was born. A new Federal prohibition began – the continuous and unrelenting assault on the a priori right to keep and bear defensive instruments in the hands of free men The 1934 NFA federally regulated machine guns, suppressors, short barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and “destructive devices which included grenades and hundreds of items the ATF added at their leisure bureaucratically to a ban list or highly regulated. This was the first notion at the Federal level of using the imprimatur of sporting purposes not the 1968 Gun Control Act as is popularly imagined such as this from the text of the wretched bill: “Any firearm with a bore over 0.50 inch except for shotguns or shotgun shells which have been found to be generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.” No Republican opposition. You will also note that America’s preeminence as a firearms innovator, especially in automatic weapons, dropped precipitously after the heavy regulation and ban on garage innovation occurred. The development of the M60 machine gun is Exhibit A. The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 (FFA) imposed a federal license requirement on gun manufacturers, importers, and persons in the business of selling firearms. This created the infamous FFL controls on commerce. No Republican opposition. One should carefully read the nonsense passed by the Supremes in 1939 in US v. Miller in which sawed off shotguns became a regulated item. Here we see the tortured logic on display of how the government can start to enforce restrictions on military-type weapons in spite of the previous hundreds years jurisprudence talking about the military applicability of weapons choices in the individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Mind you, in contretemps to their own tortured conclusions in the rendering of the verdict. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court for the case. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. It’s worth noting that the Supremes clearly stated that military weapons were protected but the length of the weapon seemed to be the operative cause for the decision. A mere generation before shotguns had been employed in WWI by US forces. No Republican opposition. Fast-forward to 1967 and we have Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signing the Mulford Act, which repealed a law allowing open carrying loaded firearms in public. He did this in response to the Black Panthers carrying loaded weapons to the steps of the Big House in Sacramento. Tease out the facts and a law was passed to confirm the “bearing” of weapons but repealed? Before that, believe it or not, California had the now popular notion of Constitutional Carry for long arms and side arms. What a tangled web they weave. No Republican opposition. This was just before the infamous passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 which severely curtailed gun rights across the board. The now extinct JPFO made a brilliant case for Senator Dodd; he was Vice-Chairman of the Review Board and later Executive Trial Counsel at the Nuremberg trials lifting the text almost entirely from the Nazi gun control laws in 1938. This would also create the noxious BATFE in 1968. And please keep in mind that a Democratic President passed this and twice as many Republicans as Democrats voted in favor of passage. You read that right. It was two Democrats, Colmer and Cellar who fought Johnson’s attempt to register all weapons in the United States. No Republican opposition. In 1972, Republican President Richard Nixon floats a proposal to ban handguns in America. To quote the scoundrel himself: “I don’t know why any individual should have a right to have a revolver in his house,” Nixon said in a taped conversation with aides. “The kids usually kill themselves with it and so forth.” He asked why “can’t we go after handguns, period?” Nixon went on: “I know the rifle association will be against it, the gun makers will be against it.” But “people should not have handguns.” The Firearm Owners Protection Act is passed in 1986 which makes illegal all machine guns manufactured after that date and signed by the same man who signed the Mulford Act in 1967. Despite a prohibition on a national registry the act nonetheless enabled the ATF to codify turning in all out of business 4473 transactions and more intensely ramp up inspection that recorded all these “bound book” transactions. In effect, creating a de facto national gun registry in the Federal books codified by law. No Republican opposition. “You do know that I am a member of the NRA and my position on the right to bear arms is well known,” Reagan said, speaking out in support of the 1994 Brady bill to create new background checks and a waiting period for gun buyers. “But I want you to know something else, and I am going to say it in clear, unmistakable language: I support the Brady Bill and I urge Congress to enact it without further delay.” In 1989, Bushevik I declared a ban on the import of cosmetically offensive “assault weapons”. This would be the prototype for the “Assault Weapons Ban“ in 1993. No Republican opposition. The idiotic Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 would be signed by Bushevik I in November 1990. Co-sponsored by Republican Senator Strom Thurmond, no less. No Republican opposition. Then the delightful and diabolical Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which started the Orwellian NICS system for those stupid enough to purchase weapons from a store-front gun dealer with an FFL. Then in 1993, the US passes the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB). So far, we haven’t even discussed the silliness of infringement on these alleged Second Amendment protections. I am a Constitutional skeptic of the highest order but my friends who still worship the parchment can provide no explanation for how often the 2A is violated yet they happily think the whole wretched system works just fine. What was interesting in this vote on the AWB is that the majority of Republicans opposed it but the Democrats fielded 64 nay votes versus the GOP nay tally of 131 because 46 Republicans voted for the ban when the Democrats owned the Offal Office. Once Bushevik II is in office, he boldly claims that if the AWB comes across his desk for renewal, he will sign it because Americans shouldn’t own those types of weapons. He goes on to sign the NICS Improvement Act of 2007 which another Orwellian in the Federal pre-crime quiver for weapons ownership. Just another Big Brother improvement to data-basing potential malefactors. It’s an interesting thought experiment to replace all these laws with the word book where gun is and one sees that the war of ideas is far more dangerous to political control than anything else. The powers that be just haven’t gotten around to gutting free speech with the merriment they have enjoined destroying personal armament. Nor is there a single well-financed organization in America whose only task is to raze every Federal gun law to the ground and salt the earth. Until the Republican love affair with authority and wood shampoos is eradicated, no accord will be reached as the powerful armed government employee lobby continues to push for wholesale disarmament of all non-agents. Like drunk-driving, the entire predicate of the massive hoplophobic complex in political law enforcement is the concept of pre-crime. And then of course we have the 2008 DC v. Heller case in which the Republican appointed Supremes tell us about “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fly in the face of earlier findings on the germane necessity of military weapons to the 2A. Like Roberts, Scalia must think that pleasing the collectivist intelligentsia with his government supremacist nonsense is more important than mere freedom. Scalia wrote this nonsense in the syllabus for the decision. “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. [United States v.] Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.” I am amused that he hearkens to US v. Miller which on its face supports my contention to carry weapons in present use by the military. I repeat, the Second Amendment is worth as much as the Constitution in defending individual liberty and freedom: worthless. I so wish one vote had gone the other way in DC v. Heller so we could get on to resolving this firearms ownership issue once and for all. Even though it would be the hard way. I am amused that the Republican victories in November 2014 made folks think that freedom would ring. Not a chance. Have you heard any potential or employed functionary of the government propose to destroy every last vestige of Federal involvement over private arms in America? Didn’t think so. Two parties, same agenda; destroy all freedom where they find it. This brief expose simply provides evidence to the notion. Resist. “Guns are an abomination,” Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, “Free from fear of gun owners’ retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles.” – William Safire, 1969
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 54.
#21. To: Deckard (#0)
The following is a bit fuller explanation from a law journal article. One minor correction is that at SCOTUS, the two bank robbers were Appellants rather than Defendants. Their attorney represented them pro bono (for free) in the trial court at Fort Smith, Arkansas. He was not obligated to represent them for free at SCOTUS and they offered no payment. Counsel communicated “[s]uggest case be submitted on Appellants brief.” The lower court held “that the NFA violates the Second Amendment by prohibiting the transportation of unregistered covered firearms in interstate commerce.” (Article below at p. 60, 67 PDF 14, 21) http://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1263&context=law_facpub Brian L. Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, 3 N.Y.U. J.L. & Liberty 48 (2008). [36 pp. PDF] citations omitted. Brief pages are numbered 48 thru 82. Part of the Legal History, Theory and Process Commons, and the Second Amendment Commons. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Faculty Publications at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Scholarly Articles by an authorized administrator of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact UKnowledge@lsv.uky.edu. On April 18, 1938, the Arkansas and Oklahoma state police stopped Jack Miller and Frank Layton, two washed-up Oklahoma bank robbers. Miller and Layton had an unregistered sawed-off shotgun, so the police arrested them for violating the National Firearms Act (“NFA”). Surprisingly, the district court dismissed the charges, holding the NFA violates the Second Amendment.1 The Supreme Court reversed in United States v. Miller, 2 holding the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to keep and bear a sawed-off shotgun as a matter of law. At 49 [PDF 3]: Seventy years later, Miller remains the only Supreme Court opinion construing the Second Amendment. But courts struggle to decipher its holding. Some find Miller adopted an individual right theory of the Second Amendment, some find it adopted a collective right theory, and some find it adopted a hybrid theory, protecting the right to possess a firearm in connection with militia service. Most recently, in Parker v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Circuit concluded Miller assumed the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and use weapons “‘of the kind in common use at the time,’” including handguns. Oddly, Second Amendment scholars have largely ignored Miller. While individual and collective right theorists alike claim Miller supports their position, most provide only a perfunctory account of the case. The few exceptions focus on the text of the opinion, rather than the history of the case, and the context in which it was decided. All conclude Miller is an impenetrable mess. At 66 [PDF 20]: As usual, the Solicitor General’s office drafted the government’s brief. In the absence of precedent, the government could not anticipate what theory the Court would adopt. Accordingly, it offered several reasonable but inconsistent arguments supporting the constitutionality of the NFA. The government began by claiming the Second Amendment does not grant a new right, but prohibits Congress from infringing a common law right. So what common law right does the Second Amendment protect? The government argued the Second Amendment “refers to the militia, a protective force of government; to the collective body and not individual rights.” In any case, it only guarantees the right to keep and bear arms “for lawful purposes,” and certainly does not protect weapons used by criminals. The NFA affects “weapons which form the arsenal of the gangster and desperado,” and the Second Amendment “does not, we submit, guarantee to the criminal the right to maintain and utilize arms which are particularly adaptable to his purposes.” Supreme Court Clerk Charles Cropley wrote to Gutensohn on March 15, informing him the Supreme Court had accepted the appeal and expected to hear oral argument on March 31.131 Gutensohn wrote back on March 22, asking why he had not received the record or the government’s brief and emphasizing that he represented Miller and Layton pro bono.132 Cropley replied on March 25, informing Gutensohn that the government had submitted a typewritten brief and he could do the same. In the alternative, Cropley suggested the court could postpone oral argument until April 17. But on March 28, Gutensohn replied by telegram: “Suggest case be submitted on Appellants brief. Unable to obtain any money from clients to be present and argue case = Paul E Gutensohn.” He was probably relieved to be rid of Miller and Layton. On March 30, 1939, seven justices of the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Miller. Chief Justice Hughes was ill, and the newly appointed Justice Douglas was not confirmed until April 4. Gordon Dean represented the United States and no one represented Miller or Layton. Two days later, Gutensohn finally received four copies of the government’s brief. At p. 67, PDF 21: The decision came quickly. On May 15, 1939, Justice James Clark McReynolds “drawled from the bench: ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’” The unanimous vote was 8-0, as Justice Douglas was recused. At p. 68-69, PDF 22-23: F. POSTSCRIPT In the meantime, Miller resurfaced. On April 3, 1939, Miller, Robert Drake “Major” Taylor, and an unidentified accomplice robbed the Route 66 Club, a Miami, Oklahoma dive. Armed with shotguns, they stole about $80, superficially wounding two bystanders in the process. Apparently, it was an inside job. Earl “Woodenfoot” Clanton, the uncle of notorious bank robbers Herman and Ed “Newt” Clanton, owned the bar. Taylor was a former associate of Newt Clanton’s, and a peripheral member of the O’Malley Gang.145 At about 9 a.m. on April 3, two or three men in a car picked up Miller at his home in Ketchum, Oklahoma. The next day, around noon, a farmhand named Fisher discovered Miller’s bulletridden corpse on the bank of the “nearly dry” Little Spencer Creek, nine miles southwest of Chelsea, Oklahoma. Miller was shot four times with a .38, twice in the chest, once under the left arm, and once through the left arm. The .45 automatic next to him had been fired three times. On April 6, someone found Miller’s torched 1934 sedan off a dirt road in the Verdigris River bottoms, about four miles southeast of Nowata. It was stripped and still smoldering. A farmer said he saw it burning shortly before noon on April 3. Taylor was a suspect in the investigation. On October 8, 1939, Sheriff Ellis Summers arrested him in Kermit, Texas, after he got in a “fight with an oil field worker over a dice game.” Ultimately, what happened on April 4 is unclear. Maybe Miller and Taylor disputed the proceeds of the robbery. Maybe Taylor shot Miller for snitching on the O’Malleys. In any case, Oklahoma charged Taylor with murder, but eventually dropped the charges for lack of evidence. Still, he pleaded guilty to armed robbery and got ten years in McAlester. On January 8, 1940, Layton pleaded guilty to the reinstated NFA charge and [Judge] Ragon sentenced him to five years probation. Ragon expected an appointment to the Eighth Circuit, but died suddenly of a heart attack on September 15, 1940. Layton’s probation ended on January 29, 1944. He died in 1967. Both Miller and Layton were buried at Woodlawn Cemetery in Claremore, Oklahoma.
Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it? Yet people insist it protects an individual right outside of a militia. An individual right to keep and bear militia-type arms?
More big government crapola from you. The "Second Amendment" is part of the "Bill of Rights". Why do government agencies like the police or military need a "Bill of Rights"??? They don't. Who needs a "Bill of Rights" are the average citizens who are not part of the government. This is so intuitively obvious that only a complete moron, such as yourself, could argue otherwise.
Correct. Do you remember why the states insisted on a Bill Of Rights for the U.S. Constitution? They wanted to make sure certain rights were not infringed by the newly-formed federal government. Each state had their own state Constitution and state Bill of Rights that protected the rights of their citizens from state infringement.
Each state had their own state Constitution and state Bill of Rights that protected the rights of their citizens from state infringement. [#32 cranko] Wow, you got something right. I'm impressed. [#35 GrandIsland] True... and Leo's swear an oath to uphold their states constitution. If talking of the time when the BOR was being batted around and passed by Congress, at the insistence of states, not all states had a constitution or state BOR. Washington was inaugurated April 30, 1789. Washington was elected unanimously, as they always say, but with electoral votes from only 10 states. NC, NY, and RI did not participate. Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789. North Carolina did not ratify the Constitution until November 21, 1789. Rhode Island did not ratify the Constitution until May 29, 1790. It's first constitution was ratified in 1842 and replaced the charter of 1663. Obviously, NC and RI did not participate in the Congress that proposed, debated, and passed the BOR. The BOR was approved by Congress before North Carolina or Rhode Island even ratified the Constitution and became a member of the new union. They were really sovereign and independent back then.
Those that didn't soon did. Let's not lose sight of my point. The U.S. Constitution (and BOR) protected citizens from the federal government. State Constitutions (and BOR) protected citizens from their state government. (At the time when the BOR was being batted around and passed by Congress.)
#56. To: misterwhite, rejects the truth, as posted by, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#54)
Those that didn't soon did. ---- Let's not lose sight of my point. The U.S. Constitution (and BOR) protected citizens from the federal government. State Constitutions (and BOR) protected citizens from their state government. -- misterwhite Misterwhites point was proven false.. The U.S. Constitution and its BORs, protected citizens from BOTH the federal government and state/local governments. State Constitutions (and their BORs) were supposed to also protect citizens from their state/local governments, but the statists among us, (like misterwhite) have taken over some States, rejecting constitutional principles. -- Leaving these issues unresolved.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest [Article] One should carefully read the nonsense passed by the Supremes in 1939 in US v. Miller in which sawed off shotguns became a regulated item. Here we see the tortured logic on display of how the government can start to enforce restrictions on military-type weapons in spite of the previous hundreds years jurisprudence talking about the military applicability of weapons choices in the individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment. Mind you, in contretemps to their own tortured conclusions in the rendering of the verdict. Neither the defendants nor their legal counsel appeared at the Supreme Court for the case. A lack of financial support and procedural irregularities prevented counsel from traveling. It’s worth noting that the Supremes clearly stated that military weapons were protected but the length of the weapon seemed to be the operative cause for the decision. A mere generation before shotguns had been employed in WWI by US forces.
At 48 [PDF 2]
#24. To: nolu chan (#21)
"The (Miller) decision came quickly. On May 15, 1939, Justice James Clark McReynolds “drawled from the bench: ‘We construe the amendment as having relation to military service and we are unable to say that a sawed-off shotgun has any relation to the militia.’”
#27. To: misterwhite (#24)
Seems pretty clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed the second amendment only protects militia-type arms in relation to a militia, doesn't it?
#31. To: cranko (#27)
"The "Second Amendment" is part of the "Bill of Rights".
#48. To: misterwhite, cranko, GrandIsland (#31)
[#31 misterwhite] Do you remember why the states insisted on a Bill Of Rights for the U.S. Constitution? They wanted to make sure certain rights were not infringed by the newly-formed federal government.
#54. To: nolu chan (#48)
"If talking of the time when the BOR was being batted around and passed by Congress, at the insistence of states, not all states had a constitution or state BOR."
Replies to Comment # 54. nolu chan (#48) --- "If talking of the time when the BOR was being batted around and passed by Congress, at the insistence of states, not all states had a constitution or state BOR."
End Trace Mode for Comment # 54.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]