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: 29804
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 (1-97) not displayed.
.
.
.
#98. To: Roscoe (#95)
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
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. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
Words mean what they want them to mean, neither more nor less.
Correct. Better to say "The individual RKBA was protected by state constitutions in those states which chose to protect the right". I didn't realize Blackstone had a lisp.
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. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
McDonald slip op at 39-40: --- It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. Yep, -- the above 'slip opinion' is a perfect example of an erroneous SCOTUS 'ruling' that can safely be ignored, as it only applies to this case and to Heller, -- it does NOT change our constitutional rights to arms, -- and those that use this opinion to so 'regulate' (infringe) do so at their own peril.. They are constitutional scofflaws.. Rave on nolu; --- It's obvious you can't argue about the point I've made,-- so you again attempt sarcasm, and fail. Your 'legal opinions' are becoming an LF joke.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
You tards do love your non sequiturs. I'll give a few minutes to drool in confusion.
He won't know what a slip opinion is.
All three of these clowns seem to really believe pieces of 'legal opinion' paper reflect how the real world works. Nolu has 'legal' training, but probably failed the bar exam. -- Misterwhite/robertpaulsen once admitted to being a minor bureaucrat, -- And poor roscoe is just an idiotic sycophant. -- So their weird ideas,-- that we have no in/unalienable rights, - can all be explained as sour grape mental aberrations. The only piece of paper in the USA that matters, that reflects how the real world works, is our Constitution.
Rave on nolu; --- It's obvious you can't argue about the point I've made,-- so you again attempt sarcasm, and fail. Your 'legal opinions' are becoming an LF joke. To: nolu chan (#56) --- He won't know what a slip opinion is.--- Roscoe They're opinions that overly impress idiots like you three stooges.
I didn't realize Blackstone had a lisp. Better to say some states chose to adopt the bulk of the English common law in their constitution and some chose to do so by statute law. All 13 did, one way or another. Rhode Island did not have a constitution until 1842 when its first constitution replaced its charter of 1663. The original U.S. Supreme Court opinions, as published in 1 Dallas (1 U.S.) shared the Blackstone lisp, being printed with the olde English font.
No, you silly twit, that SCOTUS slip op is from McDonald v. Chicago. Dick Heller was not a party to it. SCOTUS was citing and quoting from Heller as precedent applicable to McDonald. While you may claim it is safe to ignore Heller, it is obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court did not do so in McDonald. Fail.
He certainly doesn't know that the McDonald slip op is not the opinion in Heller.
You tend to "get into" your own posts that broadcast judicial decisions. You appear to suggest you agree with any court decision. Why is that? Don't YOU have a unique opinion besides copying and pasting text?
I'm beginning to suspect you aren't smart enough to be a retard. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012) American Indians had open borders. Look at how well that worked out for them.
And even then, the Constitution means nothing if a provision does not meet with the approval of tpaine. In the tpaine Court of the Imagination, the 18th Amendment was unconstitutional. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=39707&Disp=101#C101 -- tpaine, 2015-11-17 19:05:44 ET Just one of many, many examples. tpaine has never quite been able to identify the "deemer" who deems amendments to be unconstitutional. Presumably it is tpaine as Chief Justice of his Court of the Imagination. If "[t]he only piece of paper in the USA that matters, that reflects how the real world works, is our Constitution," then 1 U.S. thru 557 U.S. may be thrown in the trash, with all more recent, unbound slip op opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. It sounds like Jeff Probst recently reading votes on Survivor for Kelley who had just played her immunity idol. Brown v. Board of Education. Does not count. Roe v. Wade. Does not court. D.C. v Heller. Does not count. McDonald v. Chicago. Does not count. Obergefell v. Hodges. Does not count. All are invited to argue to SCOTUS that their opinions do not count.
--- the above 'slip opinion' is a perfect example of an erroneous SCOTUS 'ruling' that can safely be ignored, as it only applies to this case and to Heller, --- Yep, just as I wrote. --- We agree, -- except you may be obsessing about precedent again. Precedent doesn't change constitutional law. SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...
I try to post things that you cannot understand to keep you occupied.
On another note...We are getting close to the holidays. Hillary Clinton is not in an orange jump suit.
"Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
No, we did not agree about what you wrote -- that the slip op opinion in McDonald only applies to Dick Heller. Even the dumbest SCOTUS opinion counts. Too bad you are not smart enough to understand that.
Really? How do your figure your own "awesomeness" to even attempt playing mind games mr. chan?
It increasingly looks like she will not be. On the other hand, Donald Trump is still firmly in the lead, followed by Ben Carson and Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio. Jeb Bush continues to lead from behind. Do you think the FBI will finish their investigation before 2017?
I evaluate the awesomeness of your posts. I evaluate the awesomeness of mine. And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.
Mr. chan ... you masturbate wayy too much at your old age; you could die of a heart attack seeing your reflection in the mirror.
SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that... Of course it does, -- to the case at issue, and to pendants like you; --- which I've noted above, remember? Everyone here is starting to 'understand' you nolu. And it ain't a pretty picture, believe me..
Chan thinks Trump is the answer. Watch what happens.
Lemme know when you find the clause in the Second Amendment stating that agents of state and local governments "are NOT protected by the Second Amendment" against federal infringements. Did you read that in your copy of Constimutushunal Law for Tards? Your infatuation with centralized government is pretty creepy there, Sneaky.
Against his low bar, we all are. Except maybe for pstain.
I caught some rumblings watching Fox yesterday the real damning data from the server will take 4 years to sort out. So it's going to take some time. Don't know why. Well of course we do. If she is elected President she can slow the process more. So basically she is running for her life now. "Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near"---Isaiah 55:6
Comments (138 - 205) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestThey'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.
#108. To: Roscoe (#102)
So it was unconstitutional for Sheriff Andy Taylor to take away Deputy Barney Fife's bullet?
#109. To: Roscoe (#104)
(Edited)
I wonder if any of them ever looked up the definition of the word unalienable?
#110. To: nolu chan (#107)
"Some states did not adopt the common law in the constitution"
#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?
#113. To: nolu chan (#56)
That's why a little known, secret codicil of the Constitution grants to the tpaine Court of the Imagination, the infinite wisdom, and the almighty power, to point out the errors of the U.S. Supreme Court, dismiss offending opinions, and issue correct opinions. It would be a serious concern, but no actual cases, with real parties, are argued at the tpaine Court of the Imagination, and its opinions apply to nobody, not even tpaine. --- nolu chan
#114. To: Roscoe (#30)
#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.
#116. To: nolu chan (#56)
#117. To: Dead Culture Watch, Y'ALL, - and the three stooges, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu chan (#91)
You seem to really believe pieces of paper reflect how the real world works.
#118. To: Roscoe, misterwhite, Nolu Chan, - LF's three stooges (#116)
That's why a little known, secret codicil of the Constitution grants to the tpaine Court of the Imagination, the infinite wisdom, and the almighty power, to point out the errors of the U.S. Supreme Court, dismiss offending opinions, and issue correct opinions. It would be a serious concern, but no actual cases, with real parties, are argued at the tpaine Court of the Imagination, and its opinions apply to nobody, not even tpaine. --- nolu chan
#119. To: misterwhite (#110)
Correct. Better to say "The individual RKBA was protected by state constitutions in those states which chose to protect the right".
#120. To: tpaine (#113)
McDonald slip op at 39-40: --- It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
Yep, -- the above 'slip opinion' is a perfect example of an erroneous SCOTUS 'ruling' that can safely be ignored, as it only applies to this case and to Heller,
#121. To: Roscoe (#116)
He won't know what a slip opinion is.
#122. To: nolu chan (#121)
(Edited)
#123. To: Roscoe (#115)
Besides, if your "logic" was true and police have no Second Amendment rights,
#124. To: tpaine, Dead Culture Watch, misterwhite, roscoe (#117)
The only piece of paper in the USA that matters, that reflects how the real world works, is our Constitution.
"And amendments to the constitution can be deemed unconstitutional."
#125. To: nolu chan (#120)
SCOTUS was citing and quoting from Heller as precedent applicable to McDonald.
While you may claim it is safe to ignore Heller, it is obvious that the U.S. Supreme Court did not do so in McDonald.
#126. To: buckeroo (#122)
You tend to "get into" your own posts that broadcast judicial decisions. You appear to suggest you agree with any court decision. Why is that? Don't YOU have a unique opinion besides copying and pasting text?
#127. To: nolu chan (#126)
#128. To: tpaine (#125)
Yep, just as I wrote. --- We agree, -- except you may be obsessing about precedent again. Precedent doesn't change constitutional law.
SCOTUS makes a lot of stupid opinions. Too bad you aren't smart enough to understand that...
#129. To: nolu chan (#126)
#130. To: redleghunter (#127)
On another note...We are getting close to the holidays. Hillary Clinton is not in an orange jump suit.
#131. To: buckeroo (#129)
Really? How do your figure your own "awesomeness" to even attempt playing mind games mr. chan?
#132. To: nolu chan (#131)
And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.
#133. To: nolu chan (#128)
Even the dumbest SCOTUS opinion counts.
Too bad you are not smart enough to understand that.
#134. To: buckeroo (#132)
#135. To: sneakypete (#123)
#136. To: nolu chan (#131)
And I just go, damn, I'm awesome.
#137. To: nolu chan (#130)
Do you think the FBI will finish their investigation before 2017?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]