[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"International court’s attack on Israel a sign of the free world’s moral collapse" "Pete Hegseth Is Right for the DOD" "Why Our Constitution Secures Liberty, Not Democracy" Woodworking and Construction Hacks "CNN: Reporters Were Crying and Hugging in the Hallways After Learning of Matt Gaetz's AG Nomination" "NEW: Democrat Officials Move to Steal the Senate Race in Pennsylvania, Admit to Breaking the Law" "Pete Hegseth Is a Disruptive Choice for Secretary of Defense. That’s a Good Thing" Katie Britt will vote with the McConnell machine Battle for Senate leader heats up — Hit pieces coming from Thune and Cornyn. After Trump’s Victory, There Can Be No Unity Without A Reckoning Vivek Ramaswamy, Dark-horse Secretary of State Candidate Megyn Kelly has a message for Democrats. Wait for the ending. Trump to choose Tom Homan as his “Border Czar” "Trump Shows Demography Isn’t Destiny" "Democrats Get a Wake-Up Call about How Unpopular Their Agenda Really Is" Live Election Map with ticker shows every winner. Megyn Kelly Joins Trump at His Final PA Rally of 2024 and Explains Why She's Supporting Him South Carolina Lawmaker at Trump Rally Highlights Story of 3-Year-Old Maddie Hines, Killed by Illegal Alien GOP Demands Biden, Harris Launch Probe into Twice-Deported Illegal Alien Accused of Killing Grayson Davis Previously-Deported Illegal Charged With Killing Arkansas Children’s Hospital Nurse in Horror DUI Crash New Data on Migrant Crime Rates Raises Eyebrows, Alarms Thousands of 'potentially fraudulent voter registration applications' Uncovered, Stopped in Pennsylvania Michigan Will Count Ballot of Chinese National Charged with Voting Illegally "It Did Occur" - Kentucky County Clerk Confirms Voting Booth 'Glitch'' Shifted Trump Votes To Kamala Legendary Astronaut Buzz Aldrin 'wholeheartedly' Endorses Donald Trump Liberal Icon Naomi Wolf Endorses Trump: 'He's Being More Inclusive' (Washed Up Has Been) Singer Joni Mitchell Screams 'F*** Trump' at Hollywood Bowl "Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race" He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom! "Kamala’s Inane Talking Points" "The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics" Easy Drywall Patch Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind" Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’ Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer? hurricanes and heat waves are Worse 'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA. Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence. Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: nolu chan contends an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amdt could be passed Source: LF URL Source: [None] Published: Jul 9, 2015 Author: tpaine Post Date: 2015-07-09 10:39:45 by tpaine Keywords: None Views: 79322 Comments: 255 The Congress proposes, and three-fourths of the states ratify the following amendment AMENDMENT 28. Section 1. The second article of amendment is hereby repealed. Section 2. The individual right to keep and bear, buy, make, and use arms is limited to .22 caliber handguns only. Section 3. All non-conforming guns must be surrendered to government authorities or destroyed within 30 days of ratification of this amendment. Section 4. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. Poster Comment: During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 181. #9. To: tpaine, nolu chan (#0) During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. Comments? Yes, I have a comment (or two.) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. "Unconstitutional" is now in the eye of the beholder of nine justices of SCOTUS. We now have a "living breathing" Constitution. Just five tyrants of SCOTUS have already interpreted the Founders intent any way they want (emotionally), and changed federal law (without Congressional or State consent.) What exactly would stop SCOTUS from repealing the 2A? Congress?? "Public outrage? HA! Precedence has been set. Paine, I admire your commitment to the Fairy Tale that is the "US Constitution," but recent Presidents have ignored it; Congress has ignored it; And SCOTUS ignores it....In other words: "It's dead, Jim." that SCOTUS Liberator  posted on  2015-07-09   12:57:58 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: Liberator, tpaine (#9) Chan is only the bearer of bad (obvious) news. Don't kill the messenger. He asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:03:41 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: nolu chan (#87) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" [emphasis added] I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   22:19:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: tpaine (#94) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-09   22:53:16 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: nolu chan (#98) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. No. It led you to make an ass of yourself. Sigh, another silly, uncalled for pejorative flame.. -- Very unprofessional for a guy trying to pass himself off as one.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-09   23:01:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: tpaine (#101) It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   2:16:24 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: nolu chan, gatlin, Y'ALL (#109) I asked, "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns?" I replied with an example of such an Amendment and asked how it could be struck down. ---- I did not advocate for such an Amendment, but only observed that the people, as the sovereigns, have the power to do it. And I read your example, and observed that it seemed you advocated the power of the people to pass such an unconstitutional act.. I would advocate for an amendment strengthening the RKBA and 2nd Amdt. -- What would prevent an amendment taking away the RKBA today would be the requirement of getting 38 states to ratify it. It's unfortunate you didn't revise your comments over on the other thread, isn't it.. Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. You affirmed such a power, and provided an example of how such an amendment could be worded. You did not indicate that you would not advocate the power to so amend. It's unfortunate you didn't post that revision. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. --- "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502>> Well, we're not in court, but I do have a pure heart. As for empty heads, I suggest you address gatlin, our empty head expert.. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   11:41:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #141. To: tpaine (#117) Of course, I have no need to revise my comments. You asked "Does this mean you would contend that an amendment could be passed that prohibited our inalienable rights to buy, make, or use guns? " I correctly affirmed that such an amendment could be passed. I answered the question you asked. Your arguments, if tried in court, would result in Rule 11 sanctions. "There is no room for a pure heart, empty head defense under Rule 11." First Nat. Bank and Trust Co. of Vinita v. Kissee (1993), 1993 OK 96, 859 P.2d 502 Does Obama enjoy the power you espouse to ignore the Court and the laws? Does his interpretation of the Constitution and the laws supplant that of the Court for the Executive branch? Can Barack Obama lawfully deem that he is not required to comply with the immigration laws and can permit open borders, and take no action on illegal immigration? Can Obama lawfully deem 12-million illegal aliens to be citizens? Can Obama lawfully deem he can authorize the naturalization of an illegal alien? Of course, you must run and hide from my questions as your dingbat legal theory emanating from the tpaine court of the imagination ineluctably deems that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. I answered your question. Why must you hide from mine? Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   19:50:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #146. To: nolu chan (#141) I answered your question. Yep, you answered the question that lead to this thread. Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. - - Fine.. Here's another: --- Why do 'most' of you WANT to give that power to a moralistic super majority, -- like the tea-totaling idiots that prohibited booze? To date, no one on this forum, LP, or FR, has ever been able to explain why such majority rule would be desirable. (In a Constitutional sense) Man up. Answer how your version of the law applies to Obama or how it selectively applies only according to your whims. I do not ineluctably deem that Barack Obama and the Executive branch can lawfully ignore the laws and the Constitution and lawfully authorize open borders, grant citizenship to millions of illegal aliens, and naturalize illegal aliens. Your turn, -- answer mine. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-10   21:37:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #147. To: tpaine (#146) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 #25. 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? It seems clear that the Supremes indicated that in 1939. More recently, they indicated "Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592 (2008) Note however, this quote from the article. After Heller, there is not much left of Miller. FWIW, my personal opinion is that Scalia's Opinion in Heller is correct. 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. Miller has been sharply narrowed by Heller. Miller does very little. Heller at 625. 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. Heller at 592 c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed ....” Heller at 579-581 1. Operative Clause. a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5 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.” This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”—those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-04   18:22:48 ET nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-10   22:29:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #155. To: nolu chan (#147) Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. Well, bless your heart. I can see how desperate you are to see what else I have written on the right to keep and bear arms, but you seem to be too incompetent to read any of that and must rely on assertions spewed from your imagination. Here, read about the right to keep and bear arms. libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi? http://ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25">libertysflame.com/cgi-bin...? ArtNum=40004&Disp=25#C25 Well bless your heart too. Thanks for the link to that old thread, 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. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   11:53:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #175. To: tpaine (#155) [tpaine] Now you've revised your answer, claiming you do not advocate using an amendment power to repeal the 2nd. And then there is Jim Rob's summation of tpaine as "inflicting pain is your game." To: tpaine Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You are one sick puppy. To: tpaine I am unable to help it if you have an overabundance of the stupid gene and your inferior intellect is unable to comprehend my posts. You do make kind of a nice pet to keep around though, just to have some fun. 100 posted on 9/24/2003, 2:05:17 AM by nolu chan [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies] - - - To: tpaine 42 101 posted on 9/24/2003, 2:07:08 AM by nolu chan [ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies] nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   21:57:29 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #178. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, gatlin, Y'ALL (#175) Thanks for the link (at #147) to that old thread, 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. And then there is Jim Rob's summation of tpaine as "inflicting pain is your game." -------- To: tpaine - Hah! That's rich. "Personal attacks and insults" are your first and last names and inflicting pain is your game. Abuse reports from people with unclean hands are not taken seriously. If you want to be taken seriously on this forum you might think about cleaning up your act. - 257 posted on 7/28/02 4:10 PM Pacific by Jim Robinson Your game has not changed in over 10 years. You spout utter nonsense and attempt to frustrate others until a flame war erupts. Then you try to report someone and have them banned. You are one sick puppy. You've gone out of your mind. Sure, I've had a lot of discussions that have frustrated people like you, misterwhite, gatlin, etc... But I have NEVER tried to have anyone banned. -- It's usually the other way around. --- As you well know. tpaine  posted on  2015-07-11   22:25:30 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   #181. To: tpaine, misterwhite, Gatlin (#178) Thanks for the link (at #147) to that old thread, 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. It is amazing how your cited documentation in support of your bullshit looks so different when it is removed from your bullshit mischaracterization, and actually quoted. This, no doubt, is why you don't quote it when it directly contradicts you. At nolu chan #69 [tpaine] If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...". 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. [tpaine] Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about: 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. As misterwhite observed at #67, "Don't beat up the retard. That can't be any fun." I brushed you side like the insignificant pest that you are. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40004&Disp=66#C66 #66. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#57) Both the Miller and the Heller Courts issued opinions. -- SCOTUS opinions are NOT law. 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. - - - - - 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.. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-08   15:22:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: nolu chan (#66) Don't beat up the retard. That can't be any fun. I believe he's referring to court dicta, not court opinion. misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-08   15:58:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: nolu chan (#65) "Could you please source this to something that James Madison wrote or said?" The quote was from an 1829 letter to Joseph Cabell. misterwhite  posted on  2015-06-08   16:03:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #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. 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. "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. Of course it was not based on Miller's meandering dicta. Dicta is not precedent. Heller's holding is precedent. 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! You are entitled to your opinion and SCOTUS is entitled to theirs. Theirs carries more weight. SCOTUS gets to decide what the law is. If the Founders wanted to refer to individuals they would have simply said, "the right of each citizen to keep and bear arms ...". 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. Geez Louise. You want THIS court to interpret the second amendment? How about: 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. 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. 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: 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. Elliott's Debates, Vol 1, 2nd Ed., p. 335, Rhode Island Convention, May 29, 1790: 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.... Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 385-86, Virginia Convention, Patrick Henry. 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. Elliott's Debates, Vol 3, 2nd Ed., p. 659, Virginia Convention, 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. And, of course, there is the following, 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. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939) 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. 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. nolu chan  posted on  2015-06-08   17:47:19 ET  Reply   nolu chan  posted on  2015-07-11   23:05:57 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply   Replies to Comment # 181.         There are no replies to Comment # 181. End Trace Mode for Comment # 181. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com