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

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Source: 9th Circuit Court URL Source: [None] Published: Jun 9, 2016 Author: Circuit Judge W. Fletcher Post Date: 2016-06-09 16:48:27 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 27120 Comments: 127 Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016) OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Under California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense. Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. They contend that their counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They particularly rely on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: nolu chan (#0) "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-09   17:18:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: misterwhite (#1) The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the Federal District of Columbia in 2008, but left the status of incorporation against the States undeclared. Opinion of the Court by Scalia. McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States in 2010. Opinion of the Court by Alito. While the right to keep and bear arms in protected by the 2nd Amendment, the amendment does not state, claim, or imply that it either created or defined the right to keep and bear arms. The Framers felt no need to define what were, to them, the well known terms of English common law which had prevailed in the colonies and which were carried forth in the States after the revolution. The 2nd Amendment makes no allusion of the right to carry concealed weapons. I know of no law specifically for or against concealed carry from that era. The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the States. Concealed carry may just not have been an issue back before the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Heller and McDonald make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in the English common law and 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.'" Under Heller and McDonald it appears that there is nothing prohibiting a State from regulating or prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns. Prohibiting the carrying of handguns was held unconstitutional, but allowing open carry satisfies that. Of course, if Hillary appoints three or four justices to the Supreme Court, it may find that "common sense" regulations disarming United States civilians are lawfully justified by some emanation from some penumbra. McDonald at 20-21: Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20). Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” [16] Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21); see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137–143(1999) (hereinafter Levy). The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or selectmilitia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” __________ [16] For example, an article in the Boston Evening Post stated: “For it is certainly beyond human art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and, who live in a province where the law requires them to be equip’d with arms, &c. are guilty of an illegal act, in calling upon one another to be provided with them, as the law directs.” Boston Evening Post, Feb. 6, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 1768–1769, p. 61 (1936) (emphasis deleted). McDonald 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 regulatorymeasures 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. McDonald at 40: Municipal respondents suggest that the Second Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   1:29:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: misterwhite (#1) Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted. Roscoe  posted on  2016-06-10   2:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#2) "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:06:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Roscoe (#3) "And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted." Yep. And if the issue some day makes it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the composition of the court is liberal, they will rule that concealed carry is not protected -- and THAT ruling will apply to all 50 states. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:10:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: misterwhite (#4) And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). The Kentucky constitution of 1799 provided "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The Kentucky law of 1813 stated, "that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars...." The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck the law down as repugnant to the Kentucky Constitution. The Federal Constitution was not at issue. Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 12 Littell 90 (Ky. 1822) This was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state, "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." The act provides, that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt, or on presentment of a grand jury. The indictment, in the words of the act, charges Bliss with having worn concealed as a weapon, a sword in a cane. Bliss was found guilty of the charge, and a fine of one hundred dollars assessed by the jury, and judgment was thereon rendered by the court. To reverse that judgment, Bliss appealed to this court. 2. In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state. That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The provision contained in this section, perhaps, is as well calculated to secure to the citizens the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, as any that could have been adopted by the makers of the constitution. If the right be assailed, immaterial through what medium, whether by an act of the legislature or in any other form, it is equally opposed to the comprehensive import of the section. The legislature is no where expressly mentioned in the section; but the language employed is general, without containing any expression restricting its import to any particular department of government; and in the twenty eighth section of the same article of the constitution, it is expressly declared, "that every thing in that article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to the constitution, shall be void." It was not, however, contended by the attorney for the commonwealth, that it would be competent for the legislature, by the enactment of any law, to prevent the citizens from bearing arms either in defence of themselves or the state; but a distinction was taken between a law prohibiting the exercise of the right, and a law merely regulating the manner of exercising that right; and whilst the former was admitted to be incompatible with the constitution, it was insisted, that the latter is not so, and under that distinction, and by assigning the act in question a place in the latter description of laws, its consistency with the constitution was attempted to be maintained. 3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and [Volume 5, Page 213] such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description, may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted? The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise, by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act, which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution. But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first, had been the last; the argument, to be consistent, should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So, that the absurd consequence would thence follow, of making the same act of the legislature, either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion, that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. 4. Hence, we infer, that the act upon which the indictment against Bliss is founded, is in conflict with the constitution; and if so, the result is obvious--the result is what the constitution has declared it shall be, that the act is void. And if to be incompatible with the constitution makes void the act, we must have been correct, throughout the examination of this case, in treating the question of compatibility, as one proper to be decided by the court. For it is emphatically the duty of the court to decide what the law is; and how is the law to be decided, unless it be known? and how can it be known without ascertaining, from a comparison with the constitution, whether there exist such an incompatibility between the acts of the legislature and the constitution, as to make void the acts? A blind enforcement of every act of the legislature, might relieve the court from the trouble and responsibility of deciding on the consistency of the legislative acts with the constitution; but the court would not be thereby released from its obligations to obey the mandates of the constitution, and maintain the paramount authority of that instrument; and those obligations must cease to be acknowledged, or the court become insensible to the impressions of moral sentiment, before the provisions of any act of the legislature, which in the opinion of the court, conflict with the constitution, can be enforced. Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it, whenever in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:04:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: misterwhite (#4) Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, Y'ALL --- Three Amigos against our gun rights... (#7) nolu chan (#2) --- "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). --- misterwhite (#4) NOLU ----Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   19:57:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#7) The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   20:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: tpaine (#9) The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:11:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe (#8) And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. Of course, Nunn found it constitutional to ban concealed carry. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown.. -- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion. --- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Bullshit. You've been outed for the phony that you are. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   1:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan (#11) "Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-11   10:39:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13) Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   10:53:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: tpaine (#12) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Obviously, you are proven a idiot once again. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846) overrode SCOTUS Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, (1833) the way a Georgia court opinion saying abortion is not a constitutionally protected right would today overrule Roe v. Wade. Notably, you can not cite any post where I ever said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." This is because you just make up crap and defecate on the internet. Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016) B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation At the time of its adoption in 1871, the Bill of Rights — and, particularly, the individual liberties secured within it — did not apply against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833)(noting that the amendments found in the Bill of Rights "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"); Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-552 (1833)(same). Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain individual rights from interference by the States. And thereafter, the Supreme Court began using that Amendment's Due Process Clause to "incorporate" a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten Amendments against the States, "initiating what has been called a process of 'selective incorporation,' i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first [ten] Amendments." McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742, 763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases). The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights that are "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968)(referring to those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions")(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated. With respect to the First Amendment, see Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)(Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)(Free Exercise Clause); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)(freedom of assembly); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(free speech); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)(freedom of the press). As to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. at 742. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (warrant requirement); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)(exclusionary rule); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)(freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures). With respect to the Fifth Amendment, see Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (Double Jeopardy Clause); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (privilege against self-incrimination); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 22 (1897) (Just Compensation Clause). With respect to the Sixth Amendment, see Duncan, 391 U.S. 145 (trial by jury in criminal cases); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)(compulsory process); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)(speedy trial); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (Confrontation Clause); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (assistance of counsel); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)(right to a public trial). With respect to the Eighth Amendment, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)(Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause); Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971)(Excessive Bail Clause). nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:51:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#14) John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. More blithering legal idiocy. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Actually, Chief Justice Marshall wrote majority opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury was a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and Chief Justice Marshall was the proper authority to write for the majority of the Court. What he wrote was the Opinion of the Court. While the judicial department is empowered to say what the law is, tpaine is not. Notably absent is a tpaine provision of any opinion of any justice in the U.S. Supreme Court that has ever agreed with his nonsense that the original Bill of Rights applied to the States, other than through incorporation via the 14th Amendment. tpaine pronouncements contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings are legally meaningless bleatings of a fool. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: tpaine (#12) You've been outed for the phony that you are. Go tilt some more windmills at Justice Scalia. Talk about a phony. Idiot tpaine thinking he is responding to nolu chan: [SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision: [tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care? [nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court. [SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws. [tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you.... [nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. [SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so. [tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument. [nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: tpaine (#8) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-11   20:01:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: misterwhite (#13) Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government. One hopes that at least a couple of them knew what they were talking about. The Congressional Register, First Congress, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2 (1790), In context, in all cases when reference was made to "the government," the Federal congressmen referred to the Federal government, and not to the several State governments, as is clear when one considers Mr. Hartley's statement "that all the rights and powers that were not given to the government, were retained by the states and the people thereof...." In its final version, this appeared as Amendment Nine, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." August 15, 1789 Page 194: The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the amendments to the constitution. Page 197: The next clause of the 4th proposition was taken into consideration, and was as follows: "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances shall not be infringed." Page 197: Mr. BENSON. The committee who framed this report, proceded on the principle that these rights belonged to the people; they conceived them to be inherent, and all that they meant to provide against, was their being infringed by the government. Page 198: Mr. HARTLEY Observed that it had been asserted in the convention of Pennsylvania, by the friends of the constitution, that all the rights and powers that were not given to the government, were retained by the states and the people thereof; this was also his own opinion, but as four or five states had required to be secured in those rights by an express declaration in the constitution, he was disposed to gratify them; he thought every thing that was not incompatible with the general good ought to be granted, if it would tend to obtain the confidence of the people in the government, and upon the whole, he thought these woreds were as necessary to be inserted in the declaration of rights as most in the clause. Page 203: Mr. GERRY By the checks provided in the constitution, we have good grounds to believe that the very framers of it conceived that the government would be liable to mal-administration, and I presume that the gentlemen of this house do not mean to arrogate to themselves more perfection than human nature has as yet been found to be capable of; if they do not, they will admit an additional check against abuses which this, like every other government, is subject to. = = = = = = = = = = John Marshall in the Convention debating the BOR Amendments. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair. [The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.] [1. Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] [excerpt] Mr. JOHN MARSHALL All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions in that section. = = = = = = = = = = James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson of October 17, 1788, excerpt. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light—1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   22:17:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: nolu chan (#17) The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown.. -- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion. --- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Answer the question, IF you can.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   23:35:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, y'all (#18) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to fringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   0:05:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: tpaine, GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan (#21) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. And your say-so not supported by any proof will not work for me since I have found your assumptive statements to support your preformed conclusions to be consistently untrustworthy as a source of factual information. However, that being the case, I will attempt to answer your question when you asked how “that” is working out for me. As I attempt to answer your question, I would need first to try understand why these noble, highly intelligent and dedicatedly patriotic gentlemen whom I hold in such high esteem would ever want, assuming they did, “an ornamental border consisting of short straight or twisted threads or strips hanging from cut or raveled edges or from a separate band” (Merriam-Webster definition of fringe) “on our gun rights” before I determine if state power could control anything to do with said “fringe.” Since I have not been privy to prior interchange discussions, I can however emphatically state without any question whatsoever that I hate the combination of bright yellow and dark purple on the “fringe” you have referenced. This opinion of being the ugliest color combination ever is shared by a member of DeviantArt which is the world's largest online social community for artists and art enthusiasts, allowing people to connect through the creation and sharing of art. My delirium in this situation that bothers you so much and one you have so boldly taken liberty to thrust me into is best compared to the somber side-effect of a nation placed under sedation which was induced by a heroin-like injected haze of obfuscation and I always have a trepid tentativeness conflicting with a strong desire to stay free of any association with all stupid irrationality you Paultards present. That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce. I trust this answer has satisfied your curiosity and I will forever remain at a total loss to understand why you pinged me to pose such an “out of the blue” question. Gatlin  posted on  2016-06-12   3:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Gatlin (#22) "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce." Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want -- short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-12   8:15:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#19) "In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government." Hell, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights spells it out: "THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." The states were concerned about delegating power to the newly-formed federal government and added the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) to "prevent misconstruction or abuse" of those powers. Each state was fiercely independent. They wouldn't write one Bill of Rights to limit their own powers. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-12   8:29:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Gatlin, confesses to Statism, y'all (#22) I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to infringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to infringe on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. Read much? -- On this thread alone they've ALL outed themselves as statist gun grabbers, -- and they've been doing that for years, on this forum and others. That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce… And there we have it, your own confession that you support the supposed power of States to regulate/infringe upon our gun rights. --- Thank you. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:05:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: tpaine (#25) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine... anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants. Willie Green  posted on  2016-06-12   9:22:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite, gatlin, both support Statists, again... (#23) Gatlin (#22) --- And "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce." misterwhite --- Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. No, gun rights have always been protected by the Constitution, altho various yahoos in different states and localities have been allowed by leftist courts to infringe upon that right. California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:28:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: Willie Green (#26) Come try and take mine, libtard. I'll give you 50,000 (don't tell Buckyboy, he's too stupid to understand) reasons (230 grains at a time) why you interpret the 2nd amendment wrong. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:30:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: tpaine (#27) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... The top 5 states with the highest cost of chains. Kookifornia I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:32:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Willie Green joins the canary klan (#26) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine... anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants. Willie Green Thanks for adding yourself to this roll call of numbnut gun grabbers, Willy. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:33:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: GrandIsland (#29) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: tpaine (#31) lol... I have two incomes. A pension and a full time paycheck... earning ANOTHER pension. My mother lives in a one bedroom townhouse like apartment that costs more a month than your home, taxes and car payment... and it doesn't have a basement or attic. Douchebag. I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:45:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: GrandIsland (#32) If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement. I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer fvor, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. Your fascist dreams are noted, --- Thanks. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:55:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: tpaine (#33) It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, asshole. Only a liberal Paultard would equate that with government servitude. Suck it up, bleeding heart. Criminals WILL BE PUNISHED. Cry somewhere else. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   10:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: GrandIsland (#34) I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. GrandIsland Fascistic dreams... It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, And you hope they're put in a hole for 23 hrs a day? -- Fascist dreaming. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   10:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#35) Bump to a thread that outs you ALL. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   12:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#23) Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. That make sense and it comes as no surprise. He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects. Gatlin  posted on  2016-06-12   12:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Gatlin (#37) misterwhite--- California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail. --- And they cannot "do whatever they want". gatlin --- He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects. Cause --- Apparently, no one in Orlando was able to defend themselves. Effect -- A lone gunman was able to slaughter 50 of them. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   13:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#36) All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green Bump to a thread that outs you ALL. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   15:11:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: tpaine (#20) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Answer the question, IF you can.. Yes. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Do you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful? Answer the question, IF you can. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   17:29:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply         .       .       . Comments (41 - 127) not displayed. 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