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: 28171
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
Comments (1-45) not displayed.
.
.
.
#46. To: GrandIsland, Y'ALL (#45)
It's simply not true that all States are protecting the (gun) rights of their citizens. California is a prime example. Look, you're admitting that you and white are wrong about the facts at issue, so it really doesn't matter whose fault it is that California's making unconstitutional 'laws', and bad Leo's are enforcing them, does it? Those law officers swear to uphold both state and federal constitutions. -- Something you and misterwhite fail to acknowledge, and don't even have the guts to dispute, poor souls.
Nope. That is most definitely not ignoring Miller. Note the limited holding in Miller. Heller's holding prevails over Miller's dicta. As Heller is the more recent opinion, its holding would overrule a conflicting holding in Miller, if there were any. The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. Note the holding in Heller. 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 576–626. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 576–595. (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 595–600. (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 600–603. (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 603–605. (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts, and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century, also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 605–619. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i. e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 619–626. 2. 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. 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. Pp. 626–628. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition— in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 628–636. Heller (by Scalia) and Verdugo-Urquidez (by Rehnquist) have it right. Miller at 307 U.S. 178: Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.: The Court could not rule on its own, without evidence having been presented, that the sawed-off shotgun was any part of the ordinary military equipment. Miller was indicted on June 2, 1938 and filed a demurrer which was sustained in the District Court. Miller was indicted on June 11, 1938 and filed the below demurrer which was sustained in the District Court. [No. 3926, filed January 3, 1939, Wm. S. Wellshear, Clerk, by J. A. Phillips, Deputy Clerk.] IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES THE UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF, DEMURRER TO INDICTMENT Comes the defendants, Jack Miller and Frank Layton, and demur to the indictment, and for grounds thereof state: 1. That the indictment fails to state sufficient facts to constitute a crime under the laws and statutes of the United States. 2. That the alleged criminal act contained in the indictment as a violation of Title 26, Section 1132, United States Code, an Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, approved June 26th, 1934, and the provisions thereof, is not a revenue measure and is an attempt to usurp the police powers of the State and reserved to each of the States in the United States, is unconstitutional and therefore does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States. 3. That the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States provides: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed;" that the said "National Firearms Act" is in violation and contrary to said Second Amendment and particularly as charging a crime against these defendants under the allegations of the indictment, is unconstitutional and therefore does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States. 4. That the indictment herein charges the violation of Section 1132 (c) in which it is made unlawful to transfer a firearm which has previously been transferred on or after the 30th day of June, 1934, in addition to complying with subsection (c), transfers therewith the stamp affixed order; that there is no charge in the said indictment that the said defendants made any transfer whatsoever of the double-barrel 12 guage shotgun having less than 18 inches in length, and said indictment, therefore, does not charge facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the laws and statutes of the United States. 5. That the indictment charges the defendants with "not having in their possession a stamp affixed written order for said firearms, as provided and required by Section 1132 (c), Title 26, United States Code, and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, approved June 26th, 1934"; that said Section 1132 (c) does not make it a violation to merely fail to possess a stamp affixed written order for said firearms, and a failure to charge a transfer by or to the said defendants, fails to set forth facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the laws and statutes of the United States. 6. That any provision of the said National Firearms Act, approved June 26th, 1934, which requires a registration of the said firearm as required by Section 1132 (d) of Title 26 United States Code, and not having in their possession a stamp affixed order for said firearm as provided by Section 1132 (c) Title 26 United States Code, is in violation and contrary to the said Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, is unconstitutional and does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime under the statutes of the United States and the indictment further does not state sufficient facts to constitute a crime under the laws and statutes of the United States in that there was a total failure to charge a transfer of said firearms by or to the said defendants. {signed} Paul E. Gutensohn http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/26fsupp1002.html No. 3926. District Court, W. D. Arkansas, Jan. 3, 1939. A provision in National Firearms Act prohibiting delivery of firearms in interstate commerce without a stamp-affixed order is violative of constitutional amendment providing that right of people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. National Firearms Act §§ 4, 11, 26 U.S.C.A. §§ 1132c, 1132j; U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 2. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were charged with unlawfully transporting a firearm in interstate commerce without having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for such firearm. On demurrer to indictment. Demurrer sustained. C. R. Barry, U.S. Dist. Atty., and Duke Fredrick, Asst. U.S. Dist. Atty., both of Fort Smith, Ark. Paul Gutensohn, of Fort Smith, Ark., for defendants. HEARTSILL RAGON, District Judge. The defendants in this case are charged with unlawfully and feloniously transporting in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore, Oklahoma, to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas, a double barrel twelve gauge shot gun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length, and at the time of so transporting said fire arm in interstate commerce they [p.1003] did not have in their possession a stamp-affixed written order for said fire arm as required by Section 1132c, Title 26 U.S.C.A., and the regulations issued under the authority of said Act of Congress known as the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132 et seq. The defendants in due time filed a demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the facts stated in the indictment to constitute a crime and further challenging the sections under which said indictment was returned as being in contravention of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A. The indictment is based upon the Act of June 26, 1934, C. 757, Section 11, 48 Stat. 1239, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132j. The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, "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." The demurrer is accordingly sustained. The cited Section 11: A demurrer challenges the prosecution, positing that if everything alleged were admitted to be true, it would be insufficient to sustain the charges. The District Court ruled for Miller, sustaining the demurrer. At SCOTUS, Miller offered no oral argument and no reply to the government brief. Heller at 622-23 (PDF 53-54)
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.
Was stuff like this and is a whole lot more fun. “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
If that happens in my lifetime then so be it but I have the sneaking suspicion it won't. Too many people still believe as you do that voting will make the changes that are required, lol. A pistol or a knife is better that way you get closer and whisper in their ear "this is for your crimes against humanity"!! “Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
They had, and still have, the power to regulate the interstate commerce of all weapons provided those regulations don't interfere with the preservation of state militias. Plus, back when Senators were elected by their state legislators, I can't believe a Senator would vote to disarm his state. "That did not restrict the state governments from doing so in compliance with their own Constitutions. But this all changed as a result of the 14th amendment." The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. Nothing happened until McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 when the U.S. Supreme Court said, "Oh. Yeah. The second amendment applies to the states, too." "Nevertheless, the federal government never had and still does not have the authority to prohibit, restrict or otherwise control the people's right to bear arms." Can the federal government regulate speech? Of course they can. So how is it that they can regulate the 1st amendment but not the 2nd? "So, why are you arguing that the 2nd Amendment only applies to government controlled "militias"???" The second amendment protects state militias by preventing the federal government from infringing with the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms as part of that state militia. This would apply to ALL weapons deemed necessary by a state militia. Sorry. That's what it says. STATE CONSTITUTIONS protect the right of their citizens to keep and bear arms for uses outside of a militia. Or so it was until McDonald.
Exactly what I meant when I said the Heller court ignored Miller. That is NOT what Miller said. Miller said the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically associated with the preservation of a militia. AND they said they didn't know if a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun qualified. "Heller's holding prevails over Miller's dicta." Yes. But don't pretend for a minute that Heller's holding was based on Miller's dicta. "Note the holding in Heller." I did. I read it many times. Once more, now that you've posted the whole thing. The holding in Heller is as convoluted as the holding in Roe v Wade. For example, in Heller, "the people" refers to individuals if it's a right, but "the people" refers to a group if it's a power. BULLSHIT! If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...". Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about: At the time the second amendment was written, handguns were "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". What few there were, they were carried concealed by criminals for nefarious purposes. Therefore, the court could conclude handguns are not protected by the second amendment, using the exact same argument they used in Heller. AND, that ruling would apply nationwide.
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.)
Correct. And the Miller court did ask if the weapon had a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". The Miller court did NOT say anything about weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". The Heller court made that up out of thin air.
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.
Correct. And the Miller court did ask if the weapon had a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". --- The Miller court did NOT say anything about weapons "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". The Heller court made that up out of thin air. ----- misterwhite Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law. Both of you seem to imagine that the other branches of our Fed/state/local governments are constitutionally bound to conform to supreme court opinions. Not true..
More crap. You are taking Franklin Delano Roosevelt's view of the federal government's ability to regulate "interstate commerce" as gospel. The person who actually wrote the Interstate Commerce Clause (James Madison) had a different view: The Interstate Commerce Clause was all about preventing states from erecting tariffs against each other. It was never intended as a power that enables the federal government to achieve their own ends. James Madison (who wrote it) said so. It's clear as a bell, no matter what you and FDR say. Once again, your mind is stuck in the big government 20th century at the expense of the real Constitution.
James Madison was referring to the negative (or dormant) commerce clause whereby the states themselves could take their commerce complaints to the federal courts for resolution, rather than having Congress pass some law to resolve it (though Congress did have that power). Prior to FDR, that's how these commerce cases were settled. "James Madison (who wrote it) said so." Quite the contrary. He said the commerce clause power could have been lodged solely in Congress. As it stands today, it's a shared power.
From wiki: --- " ---- A "negative" or "dormant" component to the Commerce Clause has been the subject of scholarly discussion for many decades.[10] Both Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia[11][12] and Clarence Thomas[13] have rejected the notion of a Dormant Commerce Clause. They believe that such a doctrine is inconsistent with an originalist interpretation of the Constitution — so much so that they believe the doctrine is a "judicial fraud".[7] -----"
Read Madison's quote again. The Interstate Commerce Clause was about preventing the "abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing". That is the salient point. It is all about preventing states from erecting tariffs (a tax) on goods manufactured in another state. There is nothing in Madison's statement about the federal government being able to control markets like firearms, marijuana, or anything else. This power was invented during the Roosevelt administration. It's clear as a bell.
Whoa! The scholar speaks! So Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce ... except for guns. You found that exception in the constitution, did ya?
And there were, and still are, two ways of preventing that: 1) Under the power of the Commerce Clause, Congress could pass a law making that practice illegal. Or 2) Under the Dormant Commerce Clause the non-importing states could take their case directly to federal court to resolve the issue. They don't have to wait for a slow-moving Congress to pass a law. (By the way, the Commerce Clause power is about much more than one state taxing another.)
In 1802, President Jefferson, using the power of the Commerce Clause, banned the sale of alcohol to the Indian tribes. In 1807, President Jefferson used the power of the Commerce Clause to impose an embargo on foreign trade of all products (Jefferson's Embargo). Jefferson's Secretary of State was James Madison, the man who (as you correctly said) wrote the Commerce Clause. You'd think Madison would have told him he couldn't do that ... if you were correct. The same constitutional clause that gives Congress the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes and with foreign nations also gives Congress the power to regulate commerce among the several states.
Could you please source this to something that James Madison wrote or said?
Your unsupported opinion does not overturn two centuries of jurisprudence. The Court says what the law is. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) provides, - - - - - Not true.. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 180 (1803) Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument. Your claim, taken to its logical conclusion, indicates mass confusion. The Supreme Court issues opinions just to pass the time of day and to amuse itself. The other branches of government are free to ignore such opinions. The failure of Congress to legislate abortion away since Roe v. Wade is merely a legislative failure. And now there will be no more complaints about Obama's open borders as he has no need to pay attention to court opinions. Indeed, should the Court find that subsidies on federal exchanges are not authorized, we should recognize that the Executive is free to ignore that opinion and keep paying subsidies. Only the President interprets the laws as they apply to the President. It's good to be King. Indeed, as the President can interpret the law, and ignore the courts, Obama should be able to interpret the Constitution to permit him a third term and run for reelection. He need not heed anyone else's opinion.
Don't beat up the retard. That can't be any fun. I believe he's referring to court dicta, not court opinion.
The quote was from an 1829 letter to Joseph Cabell.
Miller said the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically associated with the preservation of a militia. AND they said they didn't know if a sawed-off, double-barreled shotgun qualified. Miller had no holding on the issue. The case had not been heard in the District Court. Nothing had been decided following any argument. An indictment was issued, the indictment was challenged for insufficiency, and the indictment was quashed by the District judge. That was appealed to SCOTUS. The National Firearms Act of 1934 came under 26 U.S.C., the Internal Revenue Code. The District Court upheld the demurrer based on its finding that Section 11 of the Act violated the Constitution. Section 11 reads, "It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce." SCOTUS held the Act (1) not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States, and (2) not violative of the Second amendment of the Constitution. As the case had not been heard below in the District Court, it was remanded in order for it to be heard for the first time. SCOTUS was only acting on the contested demurrer and quashing of the indictment. SCOTUS reinstated the indictment. Of course it was not based on Miller's meandering dicta. Dicta is not precedent. Heller's holding is precedent. BULLSHIT! You are entitled to your opinion and SCOTUS is entitled to theirs. Theirs carries more weight. SCOTUS gets to decide what the law is. The BOR does not apply only to citizens. It applies to non-citizens as well. For example, the search and seizure clause applies equally to citizens and non-citizens. I did not choose and they already have. Whoever opines, I want them to continue to find an individual right to keep and bear arms, unless another amendment changes that. They were required to be possessed by all able-bodied white males eligible for the militia. Federal law specified all between 18 and 45. State laws varied to a wider age range. Gun ownership was not restricted as you assume. Their were no police forces in the 1700's. Elliott's Debates contain some interesting quotes from the State debates on the Constitution. Elliott's Debates, Vol 1, 2nd Ed., p. 328, New York Convention, July 26, 1788, emphasis as in original: Elliott's Debates, Vol 1, 2nd Ed., p. 335, Rhode Island Convention, May 29, 1790: Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 385-86, Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry. Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 659, Virginia Convention, And, of course, there is the following, United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) You are entitled to your opinion. SCOTUS is entitled to theirs. They did not conclude that handguns were not protected by the second amendment. They found and individual right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS stated what the law is. It applies nationwide.
Thank you.
Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law. Yep, the dept has the duty to "say", -- in the sense of telling us their opinions. Both of you seem to imagine that the other branches of our Fed/state/local governments are constitutionally bound to conform to supreme court opinions. Not true.. Thank you for that quote, as it reinforces exactly what I've been telling you two. All our courts are bound by the constitution to reject such constitutionally 'repugnant laws'. -- And that the SCOTUS does NOT have the power to make an opinion, to 'decide' that such repugnant laws are acceptable, or that they must be enforced... Only to you and Mr Retard. No, their opinions apply to the case specified, and lower courts must comply. Yep, they are, -- under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce. You don't do sarcasm well. You should stick to overwhelming discussions with excess verbiage.
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) provides, Miller was a pre-trial issue about whether a quashed indictment should be reinstated. Heller was the issue of an actual case that had been argued and decided in a lower court and appealed to SCOTUS. Yep, and in tpaineworld, Obama, the rest of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get to ignore the opinions issued by SCOTUS. SCOTUS is not in the business of law enforcement. That is the Executive Branch. According to you, the Executive Branch is in the business of interpreting the constitution and ignoring anything the judicial branch may say that they, the Executive, do not agree with. SCOTUS' only purpose is to subsidize the paper industry.
Yep, the dept has the duty to "say", -- in the sense of telling us their opinions. Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI, and under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce. Thanks for agreeing with my point. Whatever. -- You're entitled to your sarcastic opinion, for what it's worth.
Yes, they give their opinion so everyone else can ignore it. The rulings of SCOTUS may be ignored because it has no power to enforce. It logically follows that the laws of Congress may be ignored because it has no power to enforce. Long live the king! Not only have the other branches of government ignored SCOTUS, rapists, murderers, thieves, and politicians have ignored the criminal statutes. When the court finds the defendant guilty, the Executive branch can ignore the court and let the convicted murderer go free. The Courts do not run any prisons. What a system. Ya gotta love it. In recognition of the fact that no laws mean anything in tpaineworld, the President can declare Purge Day where no laws are enforced and anybody can do anything with no fear of police statists interfering with their chosen pleasure. For some reason, you are unable to rationally address the problem that your creative version of law devolves into the absence of a functioning legal system. The federal government adopted the English common law system of law. All the original states similarly adopted the common law system as their state law system. In the antithetical tpaineworld, this legal system cannot exist or function. How can the Judicial Branch be an equal branch of government when the other two branches can ignore what SCOTUS says in interpreting the Constitution? All branches of government are equal, but some are more equal that others?
Other branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI, and under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce. Rant on.. There s no 'tpaine world', just your fevered imagination. Whatever. -- You're entitled to your sarcastic opinion, for what it's worth. I'm trying to have a rational discussion, and you're trying to put words in my mouth, with sarcasm. There you go again. -- Our legal system is functioning, badly, because there are far too many badly trained people like you, in it, ---- imho. Under our constitution, we strive for a balance of powers. Perhaps you should reread the federalist papers on the subject to help answer your questions.
SCOTUS in not an enforcement agency. Neither is the legislature. Law enforcement is with the Executive. Your point, such as it is, is meaningless. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 163 (1803) The Court has the final say on what the law is. U.S. Const., Art. 2, Sec. 3 The Constitution requires that the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. Under the seperation of powers, the Executive does not exercise the powers of the Judiciary.
This discussion is getting repetitive, and boring. - Thanks for your insights.
Sorry you have run out of creative fiction.
There is nothing fictional about our constitutional balance of powers. You should learn to live with them.
Thanks for the link (at #147) to that old thread, and the new on you just posted, --- as it proves my point completely.. You gave up the discussion shortly after the excerpts you just posted because you couldn't refute my answers. --- I urge anyone here to read the complete thread to verify. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=40004&Disp=66#C66 Again, it baffles me what you think you're accomplishing by posting uncredited excerpts. -- Who's supposed to be saying what, and when?
The BOR was very specific about protections. If it protected "citizens" (eg., the 15th amendment) it meant only citizens. If it protected "persons" (eg., the 5th amendment) it meant all human beings. But if it protected "the people" it meant citizens with full rights -- the right to vote, run for office, sign contracts, own land, etc. In other words, the ones with something to lose. Back then, those were adult, white, male citizens. Today, of course, "the people" encompasses a much larger group.
Miller was remanded because SCOTUS admitted they were in no position to determine if a sawed-off shotgun had any useful military purpose. This action is significant in that it gives us a peek into the mindset of the court. They were obviously thinking that the second amendment protected only militia-type weapons. You don't agree? No legal opinion came out of this case, true. But we can't ignore the court's thinking. "They (handguns) were required to be possessed by all able-bodied white males eligible for the militia." No. Just the officers. And worn openly. "Gun ownership was not restricted as you assume." Whoa! Let's not confuse protection of a right with permission of a right. If a right is not protected it doesn't mean you don't have it. It simply means that laws MAY be written to restrict that right. And back then there were very few gun laws at the state and federal level. The bottom line is that the second amendment protected the formation of state militias, and state constitutions protected the individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller changed that.
Back then, those were adult, white, male citizens. Today, of course, "the people" encompasses a much larger group. The Fathers and Framers used the term the people in more than one context, and their intended meaning was clear to them. [Italics in original, boldface added.] Thomas M Cooley, LL.D.; The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America; Boston; Little Brown, and Company; 1880; pages 267-268.
Miller was remanded because a demurrer was overturned. As a matter of law, it found it could not issue a ruling on the short barrel shotgun because there was no evidence established in the lower court and they could not assume, without evidence, the assertions about the shotgun as fact. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) No. 696 Argued March 30, 1939 Decided May 15, 1939 307 U.S. 174 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS Syllabus The National Firearms Act, as applied to one indicted for transporting in interstate commerce a 12-gauge shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches long without having registered it and without having in his possession a stamp-affixed written order for it, as required by the Act, held: 1. Not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States. Citing Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, and Narcotic Act cases. P. 307 U. S. 177. 2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 307 U. S. 178. The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. 26 F.Supp. 1002, reversed. APPEAL under the Criminal Appeals Act from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to an indictment for violation of the National Firearms Act. [...] A duly interposed demurrer alleged: the National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional. Also, it offends the inhibition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution -- "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Page 307 U. S. 177 The District Court held that section eleven of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment. The cause is here by direct appeal. The case was filed in the lower court. A demurrer was filed and sustained, and the indictment was quashed. There was no trial in the lower court. Absent a trial, no evidence was adduced. Contrary to the District Court, SCOTUS found the Act not violative of the constitution. SCOTUS said it could not take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia. To take judicial notice means "without the production of evidence, to recognize the existence and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notorietye.g.,the law of the state, international law, historical events, the constitution and course of nature, main geographical features, etc. The cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them. Such notice excuses party having burden of establishing fact from necessity of producing formal proof." Quoting Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. The Court could not, without supporting evidence, assume of its own knowledge as fact, unsupported assertions about the application of a short barrel shotgun. The Court could not relieve the asserting party of its burden of establishing its assertion. Thus, the matter was remanded to the lower court The Court found the lower court ruling on the demurrer failed on legal grounds. As a matter of law, it found it could not issue a ruling on the short barrel shotgun because there was no evidence established in the lower court and they could not assume the assertions as fact.
I disagree. The Founders could have easily written "the right of all persons peaceably to assemble". They did not. They chose instead "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
misterwhite -- Each state had their own state Constitution and state Bill of Rights that protected the rights of their citizens from state infringement.
True... and Leo's swear an oath to uphold their states constitution. Something the anarchist fail to acknowledge. --- grandisland
And who's fault is it ----
#47. To: misterwhite (#28)
Heller flat-out ignored Miller and started fresh.
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
Miller clearly said that the second amendment does not protect those weapons not typically associated with a militia. Miller questioned whether a sawed-off, double barreled shotgun qualified.
Syllabus
Held:
Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):
“‘[T]he people’ seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. . . . [Its uses] sugges[t] that ‘the people’ protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.”
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
Judicial notice. The act by which a court, in conducting a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion or on request of a party, and without the production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety, e.g., the laws of the state, international law, historical events, the constitution and course of nature, main geographical features, etc. The cognizance of certain facts which judges and jurors may properly take and act upon without proof, because they already know them. Such notice excuses party having burden of establishing fact from necessity of producing formal proof. Hutchinson v. State, Ind., 477 N.E.2d 850, 854. Fed.Evid.Rule 201.
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
VS.
JACK MILLER AND FRANK LAYTON, DEFENDANTS.
Attorney for Defendants UNITED STATES v. MILLER et al.
Fort Smith Division. "Sec. 11. It shall be unlawful for any person who is required to register as provided in section 5 hereof and who shall not have so registered, or any other person who has not in his possession a stamp-affixed order as provided in section 4 hereof, to ship, carry, or deliver any firearm in interstate commerce."
Justice Stevens can say again and again that Miller did not “turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns; it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns,” post, at 677, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most Justice Stevens can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General’s argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, pp. 4–5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
#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.
#49. To: GrandIsland, Pericles, All (#38)
Cause the mechanism for change, designed by your forefathers
#50. To: GrandIsland (#38)
You best grab your rifle then... start shooting.
#51. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite (#35)
True... and Leo's swear an oath to uphold their states constitution.
“Truth is treason in the empire of lies.” - Ron Paul
Americans who have no experience with, or knowledge of, tyranny believe that only terrorists will experience the unchecked power of the state. They will believe this until it happens to them, or their children, or their friends.
Paul Craig Roberts
#52. To: cranko (#32)
"So the under the federal Constitution, the Federal government has NO authority to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise control a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. PERIOD. "
#53. To: nolu chan (#47)
(Edited)
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
#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."
#55. To: nolu chan (#47)
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
#56. To: misterwhite, rejects the truth, as posted by, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#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."
#57. To: misterwhite, nolu chan, Y'ALL (#55)
nolu chan --- "Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons."
#58. To: misterwhite (#52)
They had, and still have, the power to regulate the interstate commerce
It is very certain that it [the Interstate Commerce Clause] grew out of the abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
#59. To: cranko (#58)
It is very certain that it [the Interstate Commerce Clause] grew out of the abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
#60. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL, cranko (#59)
#61. To: misterwhite (#59)
(Edited)
James Madison was referring to the negative (or dormant) commerce clause whereby the states themselves could take their commerce complaints to the federal courts for resolution, rather than having Congress pass some law to resolve it (though Congress did have that power).
#62. To: cranko (#58)
They had, and still have, the power to regulate the interstate commerce
More crap.
#63. To: cranko (#61)
"The Interstate Commerce Clause was about preventing the "abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing". That is the salient point."
#64. To: cranko (#61)
"There is nothing in Madison's statement about the federal government being able to control markets like firearms, marijuana, or anything else."
#65. To: cranko, misterwhite (#58)
The person who actually wrote the Interstate Commerce Clause (James Madison) had a different view:
It is very certain that it [the Interstate Commerce Clause] grew out of the abuse of power by the importing states in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the states themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.
#66. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#57)
Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Both of you seem to imagine that the other branches of our Fed/state/local governments are constitutionally bound to conform to supreme court opinions.
It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank.
#67. To: nolu chan (#66)
#68. To: nolu chan (#65)
"Could you please source this to something that James Madison wrote or said?"
#69. To: misterwhite (#53)
"We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns."
Exactly what I meant when I said the Heller court ignored Miller. That is NOT what Miller said.
"Heller's holding prevails over Miller's dicta."
Yes. But don't pretend for a minute that Heller's holding was based on Miller's dicta.
The holding in Heller is as convoluted as the holding in Roe v Wade. For example, in Heller, "the people" refers to individuals if it's a right, but "the people" refers to a group if it's a power.
If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...".
Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about:
At the time the second amendment was written, handguns were "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes". What few there were, they were carried concealed by criminals for nefarious purposes.
That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state....
The militia, sir, is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it. . . . The great object is, that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun.
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Therefore, the court could conclude handguns are not protected by the second amendment, using the exact same argument they used in Heller. AND, that ruling would apply nationwide.
#70. To: misterwhite, cranko (#68)
The quote was from an 1829 letter to Joseph Cabell.
#71. To: nolu chan (#66)
(Edited)
Your unsupported opinion does not overturn two centuries of jurisprudence. The Court says what the law is. --- Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) provides, --- "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." - - - - -
Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 180 (1803) ----- "It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. --- Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
Your claim, taken to its logical conclusion, indicates mass confusion.
The Supreme Court issues opinions just to pass the time of day and to amuse itself.
The other branches of government are free to ignore such opinions.
The failure of Congress to legislate abortion away since Roe v. Wade is merely a legislative failure. And now there will be no more complaints about Obama's open borders as he has no need to pay attention to court opinions. Indeed, should the Court find that subsidies on federal exchanges are not authorized, we should recognize that the Executive is free to ignore that opinion and keep paying subsidies. Only the President interprets the laws as they apply to the President. It's good to be King. ---- Indeed, as the President can interpret the law, and ignore the courts, Obama should be able to interpret the Constitution to permit him a third term and run for reelection. He need not heed anyone else's opinion.
#72. To: tpaine (#71)
Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Yep, the dept has the duty to "say", -- in the sense of telling us their opinions
Yep, they are, -- under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce.
#73. To: nolu chan (#72)
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Yep, and in tpaineworld, Obama, the rest of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get to ignore the opinions issued by SCOTUS.
SCOTUS is not in the business of law enforcement. That is the Executive Branch.
According to you, the Executive Branch is in the business of interpreting the constitution and ignoring anything the judicial branch may say that they, the Executive, do not agree with. --- SCOTUS' only purpose is to subsidize the paper industry.
#74. To: tpaine (#73)
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
Yep, the dept has the duty to "say", -- in the sense of telling us their opinions.
Yep, and in tpaineworld, Obama, the rest of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch get to ignore the opinions issued by SCOTUS.
Yep, those branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI, and under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce.
According to you, the Executive Branch is in the business of interpreting the constitution and ignoring anything the judicial branch may say that they, the Executive, do not agree with. --- SCOTUS' only purpose is to subsidize the paper industry.
Whatever. -- You're entitled to your sarcastic opinion, for what it's worth.
#75. To: nolu chan (#74)
The rulings of SCOTUS may be ignored because it has no power to enforce. It logically follows that the laws of Congress may be ignored because it has no power to enforce. Long live the king! --- Not only have the other branches of government ignored SCOTUS, rapists, murderers, thieves, and politicians have ignored the criminal statutes. --- When the court finds the defendant guilty, the Executive branch can ignore the court and let the convicted murderer go free. The Courts do not run any prisons. What a system. Ya gotta love it. ---- In recognition of the fact that no laws mean anything in tpaineworld, the President can declare Purge Day where no laws are enforced and anybody can do anything with no fear of police statists interfering with their chosen pleasure.
According to you, the Executive Branch is in the business of interpreting the constitution and ignoring anything the judicial branch may say that they, the Executive, do not agree with. --- SCOTUS' only purpose is to subsidize the paper industry.
For some reason, you are unable to rationally address the problem that your creative version of law devolves into the absence of a functioning legal system.
The federal government adopted the English common law system of law. All the original states similarly adopted the common law system as their state law system. In the antithetical tpaineworld, this legal system cannot exist or function.
How can the Judicial Branch be an equal branch of government when the other two branches can ignore what SCOTUS says in interpreting the Constitution? --- All branches of government are equal, but some are more equal that others?
#76. To: tpaine (#75)
Other branches of gov can and have ignored SCOTUS opinions that they consider unconstitutional. -- This is their duty, under the provisions of the supremacy clause, Article VI, and under our seperation of powers doctrine. -- The SCOTUS has no power to enforce.
It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.
he [the President] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed
#77. To: nolu chan (#76)
#78. To: tpaine (#77)
This discussion is getting repetitive, and boring. - Thanks for your insights.
#79. To: nolu chan (#78)
Sorry you have run out of creative fiction.
#80. To: nolu chan (#66)
#81. To: nolu chan (#66)
"The BOR does not apply only to citizens. It applies to non-citizens as well. For example, the search and seizure clause applies equally to citizens and non-citizens."
#82. To: nolu chan (#69)
"it was remanded in order for it to be heard for the first time."
#83. To: misterwhite (#81)
But if it protected "the people" it meant citizens with full rights -- the right to vote, run for office, sign contracts, own land, etc. In other words, the ones with something to lose.
The People. — When the term the people is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. Thus, the people elect delegates to a constitutional convention, and determine by their votes whether the completed work of the convention shall or shall not be adopted; the people choose the officers under the constitution, and so on. For these and similar purposes the electors, though constituting but a small minority of the whole body of the community, nevertheless act for all, and, as being for the time the representatives of sovereignty, they are considered and spoken of as the sovereign people. But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected. In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people, and not merely to the electors, or to any other class or classes of the people.
#84. To: misterwhite (#82)
Miller was remanded because SCOTUS admitted they were in no position to determine if a sawed-off shotgun had any useful military purpose.
U.S. Supreme Court
Page 307 U. S. 176
#85. To: nolu chan (#83)
"In this case, therefore, the right to assemble is preserved to all the people ..."
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]