U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source:
The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 32168
Comments: 205
Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership? By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning. During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership. The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn. Second Amendment Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national? Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well. On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword. Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA. A Double-Edged Sword… While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar. However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people. So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights. In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way. You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken. I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end? Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section. Share This!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 115.
#7. To: Don (#0)
This statement, coming from a guy who has "taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law", is absurd. As written, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government. It's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. "The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms." States have the ultimate power. The federal government only has the powers given to them by the states. States can do whatever the hell they want, provided it does not violate their state constitution. Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents.
No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind. The rights are God given and just because of your fetish for the people who wear black robes to hide penis pumps try to change simple words are winning, doesn't mean they, and Jeb! are right. What exactly in your feeble mind can the government NOT do? What rights can they not regulate into irrelevancy? Meanwhile, your buddy Jon Corzine is still not in jail. Maybe he owns a company who makes and 'services' penis pumps? Do you work for him as a field rep?
What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?
Yes, it is. Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread, that tells the rest of the story. Why after what I wrote to you, I really am laughing like hell at you for going down this road. You really can't make this up...lmao!
I have no interest in penis pumps.
DCW does.
Do you REALLY want to start an insult war with me? Because you will most certainly lose.
Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago.
Yep. And DCW cheered, totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms. Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).
NYSRPA v Cuomo, WDNY 1:13-cv-00291-WMS, Doc 140, OPINION AND ORDER (12/31/13) At 5: NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 19: NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 21:
So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)?
Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons. The militia and the military are two different things. The right to keep and bear arms is the common law right that the people brought with them when the left colonial status behind and when they set up their constitutional form of government. With the Second Amendment, the people did not give a definition of it, but they provided their rationale for prohibiting the Federal government from infringing upon it. Determine what the term "right to keep and bear arms" meant in 1776 or 1789, and that is the right that is referred to and protected. It was referred to in a context that included a weak Federal government and a very small standing army which would be no match for the state militias. That context no longer exists, and hasn't existed since the civil war.
The right to keep and bear arms is the common law right that the people brought with them when the left colonial status behind No declaration from government is necessary to establish God given natural rights. They didn't have to "bring" rights from anywhere. Inalienable rights predate all governments and edicts. The US Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on those rights. The Second Amendment specifically prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear ARMS. That includes clubs, rocks, arrows, swords, firearms, nukes, WMD's, and what have you. If you feel the need for a Kenyan dictator to disarm you, please MOVE TO KENYA!!!
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second Amendment.
"Shall not be infringed". By whom? Anyone and everyone. Historically, government is the most likely perp, and the scofflaw .gov worshipers.
So it was unconstitutional for Sheriff Andy Taylor to take away Deputy Barney Fife's bullet? Good Lord, that show was communism! Communism, I tells ya!!!
Are you an actual retard? Setting aside for a moment the fact it was a silly sit-com and not real life,Deputy Barny HAD NO BULLETS. They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees. Secondly,they are agents of the government,as as such are NOT protected by the Second Amendment while in uniform and on duty. Off duty and not wearing the uniform or driving the police car,they have the same rights as the rest of us.
No, I don't think we're related.
No, I don't think we're related. You must be a retard,or you would know we are not related. They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees. When did they say that on the show? And there is the proof.
You tards do love your non sequiturs. I'll give a few minutes to drool in confusion.
#123. To: Roscoe (#115)
I'm beginning to suspect you aren't smart enough to be a retard.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest"Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights."
#13. To: misterwhite (#7)
Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents
#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)
"No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind."
#19. To: misterwhite (#16)
What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?
#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#19)
"Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread"
#29. To: misterwhite (#20)
I have no interest in penis pumps.
#33. To: Roscoe (#29)
DCW does.
#34. To: Dead Culture Watch (#33)
#39. To: Roscoe (#34)
"Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago."
#58. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#39)
Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).
In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny. As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and largecapacity magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest. Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect.
In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.
McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.
#60. To: nolu chan (#58)
"Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense."
#64. To: misterwhite (#60)
So what protects the right of state militia members to keep and bear militia-ty type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)? type weapons (machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.)?
#90. To: nolu chan, *Bang List* (#64)
(Edited)
Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons
#92. To: hondo68 (#90)
The Second Amendment specifically prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear ARMS.
#99. To: Roscoe, government stooge, Obongo Nation (#92)
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second
#102. To: hondo68 (#99)
Anyone and everyone.
#108. To: Roscoe (#102)
So it was unconstitutional for Sheriff Andy Taylor to take away Deputy Barney Fife's bullet?
#111. To: sneakypete (#108)
Are you an actual retard?
They belonged to the Sheriff's Department,and the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees.
When did they say that on the show? Never mind. So the point you're dimly struggling to make is that Barney shoulda/woulda/coulda brought his own bullet to work.Secondly,they are agents of the government,as as such are NOT protected by the Second Amendment while in uniform and on duty.
Did you wash your hand after pulling that crap out of its hole?
#112. To: Roscoe (#111)
Are you an actual retard?
#115. To: sneakypete (#112)
You must be a retard,or you would know we are not related.
the Sheriff has the right to give or take bullets from any of his employees
.But your special friend, who you are chivalrously trying to defend, said: "Shall not be infringed". By whom? Anyone and everyone.
Besides, if your "logic" was true and police have no Second Amendment rights, your hero Obama could disarm all of the state and local police without violating the Second Amendment. He could call his federal Executive Order the Sneakypete Decree. That would serve your love of centralized government quite nicely.
Replies to Comment # 115. Besides, if your "logic" was true and police have no Second Amendment rights,
End Trace Mode for Comment # 115.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]