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: 30348
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
Comments (1-66) not displayed.
.
.
.
#67. To: nolu chan (#66)
Due process? Wow, are you behind the times. Don't you know the president can drop a drone on you on his say so? Nice fail
Kelo..... I guess it all depends on what 'public' means... At one time, we laughed when a degenerate said 'it depends on what the meaning of is, is'... Now, people like you don't bat an eye saying the same thing.
Quite the contrary. The RKBA is the same now as in 1776 or 1789, and just as valid. It has never been what delusional wingnuts proclaim it to be. At the time the Second Amendment was enacted, the state militias could have overwhelmed the deliberately small standing Federal army. The militias can no longer overwhelm the standing Federal army. The organized state militia were co-opted to the National Guard. The standing regular army is immense compared to the Founding and Framing era. The Federal army has changed, not the RKBA. The people still have the same right to keep and bear arms. So armed, they cannot overwhelm, or compete, with the full might of the Federal standing army. Article 1, Sec. 8, Cl. 12 provided that the Congress had the power "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years." That was supposed to use the power of the purse to restrain the Federal government from creating a huge standing army. It appears it failed.
Lawfully? No. Which is wy you did not provide any source, as usual. Fail. I know presidents can violate the law.
Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right? Fail.
So, you believe Obomber is in jail for murder? Why not? Why is John Corzine not in Jail? Or anyone from any major bank who have pled guilty to money laundering for drug cartels? Your belief that 'law' means any friggen thing is both sad and funny at same time. The government and those connected can do any damn thing they want, and since we have no right to keep and bear arms, we just take it up the ass. Meanwhile, we can expect more copy/paste of the drapery from you.
Why not? Why is John Corzine not in Jail? Or anyone from any major bank who have pled guilty to money laundering for drug cartels? So, you believe Obama and Corzine have been tried and convicted? What major banker was charged and prosecuted? Fail.
I quoted your post. How you cannot see that is beyond me. Perhaps if you didn't want it included, you could reduce the amount of spam in your copy/paste jobs.
So, you believe Obama and Corzine have been tried and convicted? What major banker was charged and prosecuted? Fail. No, it illustrates my point precisely. The law is a joke if not enforced.
What major banker was charged and prosecuted? None, the banks themselves were fined after being found guilty. NO ONE EVER WENT TO JAIL. Even though major laws were broken. It wasn't anyone apparently in the banks who did it. It just happened all by itself, bad bank!! No soup for you!
From the beginning. Grist mill.
Hey Monica! Long time no smell!
Cleaned your penis pump lately?
He thinks he is God. "It is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. By an universal law, indeed, whatever, whether fixed or movable, belongs to all men equally and in common is the property for the moment of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation, the property goes with it. Stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society." --Thomas Jefferson
Lol, using my joke? What are you, ten? (The old 'I know u are, but what am I?)
Now you're pretending you were just joking about your penis pump obsession? Grist mills.
I do have a better opinion of myself than you do, for sure. Maybe if you weren't such a worm of a 'man', you might also think better of yourself.
Dunning-Kruger Watch
Perhaps if you didn't want it included, you could reduce the amount of spam in your copy/paste jobs. I know it is in the 5th Amendment which I quoted. If your point is not that it is an inalienable God-given right, what is your point other than to change the subject? You have yet to give an example of any inalienable God-given right that is recognized as such pursuant to United States law. It has to be embarrassing that you can't claim just one that does not look ridiculous. We have done life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The original version of that was life, liberty and property.
And some think it was changed because of slavery. So what.
You are not the President. The law is no joke if you violate it. Fail.
Yes, they can under the protection clause provided for them called "diplomatic immunity" but not under color of state or federal law like what we witnessed during the Clinton administration with the President assaulting four women including Paula Jones.
Are you claiming an inalienable God-given right to property? Or have you given up trying to provide an example of such inalienable God-given rights recognized by United States law? Are you just babbling? You brought up property as an example of something or other in a discussion of your supposed inalienable God-given rights.
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!!! And I have also said you can be killed by a drone, life and liberty with due process mean shit. If a drone targets you, maybe you can just tell it that it's illegal, that should work. Or copy/paste a whole bunch of heat sources to try and divert it. You seem to really believe pieces of paper reflect how the real world works.
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second Amendment.
The President of the United States has no "diplomatic immunity" from United States law. Foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity from U.S. laws while in the U.S. The Paula Jones civil lawsuit was dismissed. Clinton settled while an appeal was pending. Clinton was not charged with assaulting four women. It was not a criminal suit. Judge Wright found Clinton in civil contempt of court. That was a court action, not a trial. Clinton was ordered to pay $1,202 to the court, and $90,000 to Jones's lawyers.
Homosexual doesn't appear in your name either, and yet there you go.
They're impervious to facts.
If targeted drone strikes against a U.S. citizen not convicted of a crime are legal, then that is further proof that life is not an inalienable God-given right pursuant to U.S. law. Fail.
Are you using your penis pump while you're typing?
You've noticed too? They make pretty good hit-me dolls though.
"Shall not be infringed". By whom? Anyone and everyone. Historically, government is the most likely perp, and the scofflaw .gov worshipers. And what government recognizes these imaginary unalienable God-given rights? What such supposed unalienable right do you have under U.S. law? Or are your God-given rights only enforceable in Ecclesiastical Courts and the afterlife? The U.S. Constitution specifically provides for terminating the right to life. When they execute you for a capital crime, that is about as alienated as your rights can get, supposed natural law and inalienable God-given rights notwithstanding.
The entire BoR, when enacted, applied only to the Federal government. Since the 14th Amendment, it has been selectively incorporated against the states.
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!!!
There was no "military" when the second amendment was written. The second amendment was written to protect the state militia and their arms from federal infringement. "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." Correct. And each state had a constitution protecting that common law right. It's ridiculous to think that the founders expected the federal government to protect their individual right to keep and bear arms.
And the first federal execution was on June 25, 1790. I wonder if any of them ever looked up the definition of the word unalienable?
You didn't celebrate the Heller decision?
Maybe his pump was at the repair shop that day.
Yes, it had no application but to the Federal government when written. Some states did not adopt the common law in the constitution, but all either did in the constitution or by statute. The 2nd Amendment does not empower the Federal government to protect the right, it prohibits the Federal government from infringing upon it. It explicitly identifies a power that has not been delegated. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals
Comments (108 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestrecognized the power of the government to deprive one of the supposedly inalienable right to life or liberty, as long as due process was provided.
#68. To: nolu chan (#66)
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
#69. To: Dead Culture Watch (#65)
So, because the federal government has grabbed, or simply assumed so much power, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms is no longer valid?
#70. To: Dead Culture Watch (#67)
Don't you know the president can drop a drone on you on his say so?
#71. To: Dead Culture Watch (#68)
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
#72. To: nolu chan (#70)
#73. To: Dead Culture Watch (#72)
So, you believe Obomber is in jail for murder?
#74. To: nolu chan (#71)
Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right?
#75. To: nolu chan (#73)
#76. To: nolu chan (#73)
#77. To: Dead Culture Watch (#68)
I guess it all depends on what 'public' means...
#78. To: Roscoe (#77)
#79. To: Dead Culture Watch (#78)
#80. To: nolu chan (#71)
Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right?
#81. To: Roscoe (#80)
#82. To: Dead Culture Watch (#81)
#83. To: Roscoe (#80)
He thinks he is God
#84. To: Dead Culture Watch (#83)
#85. To: Dead Culture Watch (#74)
Do you claim that the right to property is an inalienable God-given right?
I quoted your post. How you cannot see that is beyond me.
#86. To: nolu chan (#85)
#87. To: Dead Culture Watch (#75)
No, it illustrates my point precisely. The law is a joke if not enforced.
#88. To: nolu chan (#70)
I know presidents can violate the law.
#89. To: Dead Culture Watch (#86)
And some think it was changed because of slavery. So what.
#90. To: nolu chan, *Bang List* (#64)
(Edited)
Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#91. To: nolu chan (#85)
#92. To: hondo68 (#90)
The Second Amendment specifically prohibits government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear ARMS.
#93. To: goldilucky (#88)
Yes, they can under the protection clause provided for them called "diplomatic immunity"
#94. To: Roscoe (#92)
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second Amendment.
#95. To: nolu chan (#93)
#96. To: Dead Culture Watch (#91)
And I have also said you can be killed by a drone, life and liberty with due process mean shit.
#97. To: Dead Culture Watch (#94)
#98. To: Roscoe (#95)
They're impervious to facts.
#99. To: Roscoe, government stooge, Obongo Nation (#92)
The word "government" does not even appear in the Second
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#100. To: hondo68 (#90)
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.
#101. To: hondo68, Roscoe (#99)
"Shall not be infringed".
#102. To: hondo68 (#99)
Anyone and everyone.
#103. To: nolu chan (#64)
"Nothing protects the falsely declared "right" to keep and bear military weapons. The militia and the military are two different things."
#104. To: nolu chan (#100)
#105. To: Dead Culture Watch (#54)
#106. To: misterwhite (#105)
You didn't celebrate the Heller decision?
#107. To: misterwhite (#103)
The second amendment was written to protect the state militia and their arms from federal infringement.
And each state had a constitution protecting that common law right. It's ridiculous to think that the founders expected the federal government to protect their individual right to keep and bear arms.
5. THE fifth and laft auxiliary right of the fubject, that I fhall at prefent mention, is that of having arms for their defence, fuitable to their condition and degree, and fuch as are allowed by law. Which is alfo declared by the fame ftatute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due reftrictions, of the natural right of refiftance and felf-prefervation, when the fanctions of fociety and laws are found infufficient to reftrain the violence of oppreffion.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]