U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles
Title: You have NO IDEA what’s coming: Virginia Dems to unleash martial law attack on 2A counties using roadblocks to confiscate firearms and spark a shooting war
Source:
Government Slaves/Natural News
URL Source: https://governmentslaves.news/2019/ ... arms-and-spark-a-shooting-war/
Published: Dec 19, 2019
Author: Mike Adams
Post Date: 2019-12-21 11:10:14 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 33592
Comments: 171
After passing extremely restrictive anti-gun legislation in early 2020, Virginia has a plan to deploy roadblocks at both the county and state levels to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens (at gunpoint, of course) as part of a deliberate effort to spark a shooting war with citizens, sources are now telling Natural News. Some might choose to dismiss such claims as speculation, but these sources now say that Virginia has been chosen as the deliberate flashpoint to ignite the civil war that’s being engineered by globalists. Their end game is to unleash a sufficient amount of violence to call for UN occupation of America and the overthrow of President Trump and the republic. Such action will, of course, also result in the attempted nationwide confiscation of all firearms from private citizens, since all gun owners will be labeled “domestic terrorists” if they resist. Such language is already being used by Democrat legislators in the state of Virginia. The Democrat-run impeachment of President Trump is a necessary component for this plan, since the scheme requires Trump supporters to be painted as “enraged domestic terrorists” who are seeking revenge for the impeachment. This is how the media will spin the stories when armed Virginians stand their ground and refuse to have their legal firearms confiscated by police state goons running Fourth Amendment violating roadblocks on Virginia roads. Roadblocks will be set up in two types of locations, sources tell Natural News: 1) On roads entering the state of Virginia from neighboring states that have very high gun ownership, such as Kentucky, Tennessee and North Carolina, and 2) Main roads (highways and interstates) that enter the pro-2A counties which have declared themselves to be Second Amendment sanctuaries. With over 90 counties now recognizing some sort of pro-2A sanctuary status, virtually the entire State of Virginia will be considered “enemy territory” by the tyrants in Richmond who are trying to pull off this insidious scheme. As the map shows below, every green county has passed a pro-2A resolution of one kind or another. As you can see, nearly the entire state is pro-2A, completely surrounding the Democrat tyrants who run the capitol of Richmond. The purpose of the roadblocks, to repeat, has nothing to do with public safety or enforcing any law. It’s all being set up to spark a violent uprising against the Virginia Democrats and whatever law enforcement goons are willing to go along with their unconstitutional demands to violate the fundamental civil rights of Virginian citizens. Over 90 Virginian counties, cities and municipalities have so far declared themselves to be pro-2A regions, meaning they will not comply with the gun confiscation tyranny of Gov. Northam and his Democrat lackeys. Democrats in Virginia have threatened to activate the National Guard to attack pro-2A “terrorists,” and a recent statement from the Guard unit in Virginia confirms that the Guard has no intention to resist Gov. Northam’s outrageous orders, even if they are illegal or unconstitutional. One county in Virginia — Tazewell — has already activated its own militia in response. As reported by FirearmsNews.com: In addition to passing their Second Amendment Sanctuary Resolution, the county also passed a Militia Resolution. This resolution formalizes the creation, and maintenance of a defacto civilian militia in the county of Tazewell. And to get a better understanding why the council members passed this resolution, Firearms News reached out to one of its members, Thomas Lester. Mr. Lester is a member of the council, as well as a professor of American History and Political Science. Firearms News: Councilman Lester, what are the reasons behind passing this new resolution, and what does it mean for the people of Tazewell County? Tom Lester: … the purpose of the militia is not just to protect the county from domestic danger, but also protect the county from any sort of tyrannical actions from the Federal government. Our constitution is designed to allow them to use an armed militia as needed. If the (Federal) government takes those arms away, it prevents the county from fulfilling their constitutional duties. The situation is escalating rapidly in Virginia, which is precisely what Democrats and globalists are seeking. As All News Pipeline reports: With many Virginia citizens angry with the threat of tyranny exploding there, ANP was recently forwarded an email written by a very concerned Virginia citizen who warned that Democratic leadership is pushing Virginia there towards another ‘shot heard around the world’ with Virginia absolutely the satanic globalists new testing ground for disarming all of America in a similar fashion should they be successful there. And while we’ll continue to pray for peace in America, it’s long been argued that it’s better to go down fighting than to be a slave to tyranny for the rest of one’s life. And with gun registration seemingly always preceding disarmament and disarmament historically leading to genocide, everybody’s eyes should be on what’s happening now in Virginia. With the mainstream media clearly the enemy of the American people and now President Trump confirming they are ‘partners in crime’ with the ‘deep state’ that has been attempting an illegal coup upon President Trump ever since he got into office, how can outlets such as CNN, MSNBC, the NY Times, Washington Post and all of the others continuously pushing the globalists satanic propaganda be held accountable and responsible for the outright madness they are unleashing upon America? Where is all this really headed? The bottom line goal of the enemies of America is to transform the country into a UN-occupied war zone, where UN troops go door to door, confiscating weapons from the American people. President Trump will be declared an “illegitimate dictator” and accused of war crimes, since Democrats and the media have already proven they can dream up any crime imaginable and accuse the President of that crime, without any basis in fact. And as we know with the Dems, if they can’t rule America, they will seek to destroy it. Causing total chaos is their next best option to resisting Trump’s efforts to drain the swamp, since the Dems know they can’t defeat Trump in an honest election. Expect Virginia to be the ignition point for all this. Even the undercover cops who work there are now warning about what’s coming. Via WesternJournal.com: Virginia’s Democratic politicians appear to be ready to drive the state into a period of massive civil unrest with no regard for citizens’ wishes, but conservatives in the commonwealth will not be stripped of their rights without a fight. In the face of expected wide-reaching bans on so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other arms protected under the 2nd Amendment, Virginians are standing up to Democratic tyranny. A major in the Marine Corps reserves took an opportunity during a Dec. 3 meeting to warn the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County about trouble on the horizon. Ben Joseph Woods spoke about his time in the military, his federal law enforcement career and his fears about where politicians are taking Virginia. “I work plainclothes law enforcement,” Woods said. “I walk around without a uniform, people don’t see my badge, people don’t see my gun, and I can tell you: People are angry.” Woods said that the situation in Virginia is becoming so dangerous that he is close to moving his own wife and unborn child out of the state. The reason is because my fellow law enforcement officers I’ve heard on more than one occasion tell me they would not enforce these bills regardless of whether they believe in them ideologically,” Woods said, “because they believe that there are so many people angry — in gun shops, gun shows, at bars we’ve heard it now — people talking about tarring and feathering politicians in a less-than-joking manner.” As Woods mentioned politicians themselves could very well be in danger because of their decisions, several rebel yells broke out as the crowd cheered him on. Stay informed. Things are about to happen over the next 10 months that you would have never imagined just five years ago. And to all those who mocked our warnings about the coming civil war, you are about to find yourself in one. Sure hope you know how to run an AR platform and build a water filter. Things won’t go well for the unprepared, especially in the cities. And, by the way, Richmond is surrounded by patriots. At what point will the citizens of Virginia decide to arrest and incarcerate all the lawless, treasonous tyrants in Richmond who tried to pull this stunt? I have a feeling there’s about to be a real shortage of rope across Virginia…
The gun confiscation roadblocks are almost sure to start a shooting war
The enemies of America want to turn the entire country into a UN-occupied war zone and declare President Trump to be an “illegitimate dictator”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-15) not displayed.
.
.
.
#16. To: nolu chan (#11)
Dubious, indeed. Jefferson wanted the include the phrase “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms” in the proposed Virginia State constitution in 1776. It was rejected.
Jesus. How in the hell did they ever come up with that little ditty? I suppose the second amendment's mention of a militia was superfluous. So simple. The second amendment protects state militias from federal infringement and state constitutions protect the individual right.
US v Miller does NOT say "those in common use for lawful purposes". It reads "of the kind in common use at the time". Period. But the rest is correct -- the second amendment protects only militia-type weapons.
Miller said nothing about "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Quite the contrary. Miller said the second amendment ONLY protects militia-type weapons. If militia-type weapons (eg., machine guns) are banned, how are they ever to become "in common use"?
Correct. According to Miller, the weapon had to have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”. Weapons of war were protected by the second amendment.
The drafting history is of dubious interpretative worth as it does not express the will of the legislative body
No bother, the English Common Law, from which the right to keep and bear arms was directly derived, contains the content you question. But the amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." What is it that shall not be infringed? One needs to determine what was intended by the term "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to determine what shall not be infringed. As stated in 1802 and quoted in Lynch v. Clarke in 1844, "The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law." By the interpretation of some, one must find the Framers intended to protect, and did protect, a right that did not then exist and had never existed in the colonies, the several states or the United States. It was the colonial common law right to keep and bear arms that was carried forth into the union. Lynch v. Clarke, New York Legal Observer, Vol 3, 236, 245 (1844) Quotes from State Constitutions Paragraph 1. Be it enacted and declared by the Governor, and Council, and House of Representatives, in General Court assembled, That the ancient Form of Civil Government, contained in the Charter from Charles the Second, King of England, and adopted by the People of this State, shall be and remain the Civil Constitution of this State, under the sole authority of the People thereof, independent of any King or Prince whatever. - - - - - Delaware 1776 Art. 25. The common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law as has been heretofore adopted in practice in this State, shall remain in force, unless they shall be altered by a future law of the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this constitution, and the declaration of rights, &c., agreed to by this convention. - - - - - Maryland, 1776 III. That the inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the common law of England, and the trial by jury, according to the course of that law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes, as existed at the time of their first emigration, and which, by experience, have been found applicable to their local and other circumstances, and of such others as have been since made in England, or Great Britain, and have been introduced, used and practised by the courts of law or equity; and also to acts of Assembly, in force on the first of June seventeen hundred and seventy-four, except such as may have since expired, or have been or may be altered by acts of Convention, or this Declaration of Rights—subject, nevertheless, to the revision of, and amendment or repeal by, the Legislature of this State: and the inhabitants of Maryland are also entitled to all property, derived to them, from or under the Charter, granted by his Majesty Charles I. to Cæcilius Calvert, Baron of Baltimore. - - - - - New Jersey, 1776 XXI. That all the laws of this Province, contained in the edition lately published by Mr. Allinson, shall be and remain in full force, until altered by the Legislature of this Colony (such only excepted, as are incompatible with this Charter) and shall be, according as heretofore, regarded in all respects, by all civil officers, and others, the good people of this Province. XXII. That the common law of England, as well as so much of the statute law, as have been heretofore practised in this Colony, shall still remain in force, until they shall be altered by a future law of the Legislature; such parts only excepted, as are repugnant to the rights and privileges contained in this Charter; and that the inestimable right of trial by jury shall remain confirmed as a part of the law of this Colony, without repeal, forever. - - - - - New York, 1777 XXXV. And this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, ordain, determine, and declare that such parts of the common law of England, and of the state law of England and Great Britain, and of the acts of the legislature of the colony of New York, as together did form the law of the said colony on the 19th day of April, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, shall be and continue the law of this State, subject to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State shall, from time to time, make concerning the same. That such of the said acts, as are temporary, shall expire at the times limited for their duration respectively. That all such parts of the said common law, and all such of the said statutes and acts aforesaid, or parts thereof, as may be construed to establish or maintain any particular denomination of Christians or their ministers, or concern the allegiance heretofore yielded to, and the supremacy, sovereignty, government, or prerogatives claimed or exercised by, the King of Great Britain and his predecessors, over the colony of New York and its inhabitants, or are repugnant to this constitution, be, and they hereby are, abrogated and rejected. And this convention doth further ordain, that the resolves or resolutions of the congresses of the colony of New York, and of the convention of the State of New York, now in force, and not repugnant to the government established by this constitution, shall be considered as making part of the laws of this State; subject, nevertheless, to such alterations and provisions as the legislature of this State may, from time to time, make concerning the same. 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 (1765)
It is about time you get past Miller and the transportation of a sawed off shotgun. Update to Heller and McDonald.
Update to where you can say according to Heller and McDonald.
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms. It shall not be infringed. That means you can have any weapon you want. That is what the words mean. Now what some hack Judge like Roberts says.
Exactly. And that was the right of the states to form militias and to have that right protected from federal infringement.
That's like saying, "Update to Roe v Wade" or "Update to Kelo". Heller and McDonald are flawed rulings. They're contrary to all previous rulings by the courts and contrary to the Framer's intent. State constitutions protect the individual right to keep and bear arms -- -- -- which is why gun laws vary from state to state.
Heller cited Miller so why can't I?
The second amendment protected the right of "the people" as part of a State militia to keep and bear militia-type weapons from federal infringement. That's the way it was written and that's the way it was interpreted by the courts for over 200 years.
[misterwhite #28] Heller cited Miller so why can't I? [misterwhite #29] The second amendment protected the right of "the people" as part of a State militia to keep and bear militia-type weapons from federal infringement. While Miller does not really conflict with Heller, Heller, as the more recent interpretation of the Constitution, strikes down all prior interpretations which conflict with Heller. Heller applied to the District of Columbia. McDonald extended the application of Heller to the States. They are binding precedent, whether you agree with them or not. Miller, does not conflict with Heller, as Heller interprets Miller. You may cite Miller as in agreement with Heller. Any of your misbegotten fanciful interpretations of Miller are non-starters as being in conflict with Heller. Any holding of constitutional interpretation in Miller which actually conflicted with Heller would be struck down by Heller. To cite Miller to interpret the Constitution in a fashion in conflict with Heller is an act of futility and a waste of time. The law of the United States, as expressed in Heller: SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J. and Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) at 620-28: Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade "bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law." Id., at 264-265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups. JUSTICE STEVENS [621] presses Presser into service to support his view that the right to bear arms is limited to service in the militia by joining Presser's brief discussion of the Second Amendment with a later portion of the opinion making the seemingly relevant (to the Second Amendment) point that the plaintiff was not a member of the state militia. Unfortunately for JUSTICE STEVENS' argument, that later portion deals with the Fourteenth Amendment; it was the Fourteenth Amendment to which the plaintiff's nonmembership in the militia was relevant. Thus, JUSTICE STEVENS' statement that Presser "suggested that . . . nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia," post, at 674-675, is simply wrong. Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment's meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations. JUSTICE STEVENS places overwhelming reliance upon this Court's decision in Miller, 307 U. S. 174. "[H]undreds of judges," we are told, "have relied on the view of the Amendment we endorsed there," post, at 638, and "[e]ven if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself . . . would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law," post, at 639. And what is, according to JUSTICE STEVENS, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment "protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." Post, at 637. Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of JUSTICE STEVENS' case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men's federal indictment for transporting an unregistered short-barreled [622] shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court's basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were "bear[ing] arms" not "for . . . military purposes" but for "nonmilitary use," post, at 637. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). "Certainly," the Court continued, "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right. This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen. JUSTICE STEVENS can say again and again that Miller did not "turn on the difference between muskets and sawed-off shotguns; it turned, rather, on the basic difference between the military and nonmilitary use and possession of guns," post, at 677, but the words of the opinion prove otherwise. The most JUSTICE STEVENS can plausibly claim for Miller is that it declined to decide the nature of the Second Amendment right, despite the Solicitor General's argument (made in the alternative) that the right was collective, see Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, [623] No. 696, pp. 4-5. Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 676-677, that the opinion reached its conclusion "[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today." Not many, which was not entirely the Court's fault. The defendants made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court's consideration of the Second Amendment). See Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, 3N. Y. U. J. L. & Liberty 48, 65-68 (2008). The Government's brief spent two pages discussing English legal sources, concluding "that at least the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion or excuse was always a crime" and that (because of the class-based restrictions and the prohibition on terrorizing people with dangerous or unusual weapons) "the early English law did not guarantee an unrestricted right to bear arms." Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 9-11. It then went on to rely primarily on the discussion of the English right to bear arms in Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. 154, for the proposition that the only uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that relate to the militia, not self-defense. See Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 12-18. The final section of the brief recognized that "some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property," and launched an alternative argument that "weapons which are commonly used by criminals," such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. See id., at 18-21. The Government's Miller brief thus provided [624] scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment—and the Court was presented with no counterdiscussion. As for the text of the Court's opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178-182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case. We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial [625] and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra. 25 We conclude that nothing in our precedents forecloses our adoption of the original understanding of the Second Amendment. [...] [626] III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws impos- [627] ing conditions and qualfications on the commercial sale of arms. We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874). It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratiication was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of it between the prefatory clause [628] and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Miller protected militia-type weapons from federal infringement. Heller ruled that "common use" weapons are protected for self-defense in the home. Totally different, a perversion of the second amendment, and a ruling which limits second amendment protection. "They are binding precedent, whether you agree with them or not." I see. They're binding, but Cruikshank, Presser and Miller are not.
Oh? And where is that enumerated power listed in the U.S. Constitution? "Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen." Pure speculation. The Miller court ruled on the weapon being transported in interstate commerce and found that the second amendment did not protect it -- no matter who was transporting it.
Might be unconstitutional? The National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns ARE unconstitutional. And without those restrictions, machine guns WOULD be "in common use" today.
Anywhere that you project that Miller interpreted the Constitution differently than Heller, Miller is superseded by Heller. Your attempts to invoke Miller are futile and a waste of time. On any particular point, a more recent holding supersedes any prior holding. If you wish to continue your misinterpretation of Miller you are free to do so. Heller said there was no conflict. If there were a conflict, Heller would supercede Miller or any prior precedent you may choose to drag up or misinterpret.
Anywhere that you project that Miller interpreted the Constitution differently than Heller, Miller is superseded by Heller. Your attempts to invoke Miller are futile and a waste of time. On any particular point, a more recent holding supersedes any prior holding. If you wish to continue your misinterpretation of Miller you are free to do so. Heller said there was no conflict. If there were a conflict, Heller would supercede Miller or any prior precedent you may choose to drag up or misinterpret.
Nope it is an individual right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. You're wrong like you often are. If you get confused again just let me know and I will set you straight.
Case law is a waste of time. It isn't in the constitution. Read the constitution and understand it for yourself instead of relying on tyrants. If they get it right give them kudos. If they get it wrong don't pretend and do mental gymnastics to make words mean things they never said. It must stuck to have to change the meaning of words based on what some judge says.
Sure, if you ignore the rest of the amendment.
Stare decisis be damned!
Stare decisis be damned!
The Constitution itself is drafted in the language of the English Common Law and SCOTUS itself has remarked that it is impossible to read and interpret without resort to the English Common Law. Common law itself is the collection of court-made law. If you do not like the common law system, you should experience just one case in the Code System of law, common in Latin Europe. Case law is the very basis of the Common Law system of law adopted by the Federal government and all thirteen original States. All thirteen states adopted so much of the English Common Law as was not inconsistent with the Federal Consistution. They did so explicitly, either in their State constitution, or in their State statute law. You need not take my word for it. Long ago, I collected the source material for that claim and published it on scribd. Absent stare decisis, we would not have a functioning legal system at all.
See #41 and stop being a jerk.
Me being a jerk? You lecture me on stare decisis while ignoring Cruikshank, Presser and Miller? Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis. You want to give this power to the Supreme Court? The power, for example, to define the type of arms protected and have that definition apply nationwide? Already they've limited the definition to "in common use" for self-defense in the home. Yeah, that's what the second amendment means. You're so eager to look to the U.S. Supreme Court to protect this right from state laws that you ignore the potential for abuse by some future, liberal-dominated court which now has the power to destroy the real meaning.
Then you have the balls to say that, well, if there is a conflict with Heller, too bad. Heller is now the new precedent and I must ignore all prior rulings ... because stare decisis. Yes, that's how it works. When Brown v. Topeka Board of Education struck down Plessey v. Ferguson, neither Plessey nor anything else could be cited as making separate but equal lawful. Repeating your bullshit endlessly does not polish those turds of thought into pearls of wisdom. Heller and McDonald superseded all prior interpretations which conflicted with them. Heller states it did not conflict earlier precedents. Heller disagrees with your personal and very fanciful, but wrong, reading of those precedents. Your personal, but wrong, reading of those precedents does not strike down Heller. Deal with it. Heller does not conflict with earlier precedent. If there were an earlier precedent in conflict, Heller would supersede it. As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price.
No. Only an existing one at an exorbitant price. Has it been that way since before you were born?
1986 federal legislation called the Firearm Owners Protection Act (specifically the Hughes Amendment) prohibited the possession of “new” machine guns by citizens.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Signed into law 19 March 1986. Which commie was president then? Passed in the Senate 79-15. The yeas were 49 GOP, 30 Dem. The Nays were 2 GOP, 13 Dem. Not voting 2 GOP, 4 Dem. Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote. Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.
Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.
Accurate. You accurately portray the legal system as it is, and particularly the system of precedent as it applies under the Common Law. I've practiced both American law (common law) and French Civil Law. The systems get to about the same conclusions, but the pathways are different. That they arrive at the same place is testimony to the bedrock of COMMON SENSE that underlies law. Law is not an exercise in abstract philosophy. It is, in the final analysis, a TOOL of governance, where the rubber meets the road between actual citizens in real disputes with each other and/or with the state. Nutty notions that some subject matter is, somehow, "above the law" just don't work in a world in which there are REAL disputes, with REAL economic and physical consequences. The reason we developed courts at all - whether Common Law or Civil Law - is precisely because if such places of official adjudication DON'T exist and DON'T have orderly rules and procedures that can be predicted and relied upon, people will resort to "self-help", which is a nice way of saying dueling, blood feud, vendetta, and private war. Civil Law, originally Roman Law, fell into disrepair after the fall of Rome, and with it, the Roman Peace evaporated. Feudal Europe was a pretty bloody and terrible place to live. Common Law grew up in places as a bulwark against the craziness of blood feud. Granted, Christianity (specifically Catholic Canon Law, which was the only game in town in the 1000s (crazies' assertions to the contrary notwithstanding), very heavily inflected the civil and common law courts, by providing an overarching set of lofty (and often unachieved) standards. Still, courts evolved through experience and common sense. People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.
Oh? The system that says if you don't like precedent you can change it? Then once you have the new "precedent" you're happy with, that precedent cannot be changed because shut up.
Hold 'em accountable. Them and President Ronald Reagan. Senate Vote #142 1985-07-09 TO PASS S 49
REPUBLICAN - YEA
SD Yea Sen. James Abdnor [R, 1981-1986]
ND Yea Sen. Mark Andrews [R, 1981-1986]
MN Yea Sen. Rudolph "Rudy" Boschwitz [R, 1978-1990]
MS Yea Sen. Thad Cochran [R, 1979-2018]
ME Yea Sen. William Cohen [R, 1979-1996]
NY Yea Sen. Alfonse D'Amato [R, 1981-1998]
MO Yea Sen. John Danforth [R, 1976-1994]
AL Yea Sen. Jeremiah Denton Jr. [R, 1981-1986]
KS Yea Sen. Robert Dole [R, 1969-1996]
NM Yea Sen. Pete Domenici [R, 1973-2008]
MN Yea Sen. David Durenberger [R, 1978-1994]
NC Yea Sen. John East [R, 1981-1986]
WA Yea Sen. Daniel Evans [R, 1983-1988]
UT Yea Sen. Edwin "Jake" Garn [R, 1974-1992]
AZ Yea Sen. Barry Goldwater [R, 1969-1986]
WA Yea Sen. Slade Gorton [R, 1981-1986]
TX Yea Sen. Phil Gramm [R, 1985-2002]
IA Yea Sen. Charles "Chuck"Grassley [R, 1981-2022]
UT Yea Sen. Orrin Hatch [R, 1977-2018]
FL Yea Sen. Paula Hawkins [R, 1981-1986]
NV Yea Sen. Jacob Hecht [R, 1983-1988]
PA Yea Sen. Henry Heinz III [R, 1977-1991]
NC Yea Sen. Jesse Helms [R, 1973-2002]
NH Yea Sen. Gordon Humphrey [R, 1979-1990]
KS Yea Sen. Nancy Kassebaum [R, 1978-1996]
WI Yea Sen. Robert Kasten Jr. [R, 1981-1992]
NV Yea Sen. Paul Laxalt [R, 1974-1986]
IN Yea Sen. Richard Lugar [R, 1977-2012]
GA Yea Sen. Mack Mattingly [R, 1981-1986]
ID Yea Sen. James McClure [R, 1973-1990]
KY Yea Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, 1985-2020]
AK Yea Sen. Frank Murkowski [R, 1981-2002]
OK Yea Sen. Don Nickles [R, 1981-2004]
OR Yea Sen. Robert Packwood [R, 1969-1995]
SD Yea Sen. Larry Pressler [R, 1979-1996]
IN Yea Sen. James "Dan" Quayle [R, 1981-1989]
DE Yea Sen. William Roth Jr. [R, 1971-2000]
NH Yea Sen. Warren Rudman [R, 1980-1992]
WY Yea Sen. Alan Simpson [R, 1979-1996]
PA Yea Sen. Arlen Specter [R, 1981-2010]
VT Yea Sen. Robert Stafford [R, 1971-1988]
AK Yea Sen. Ted Stevens [R, 1968-2008]
ID Yea Sen. Steven Symms [R, 1981-1992]
SC Yea Sen. Strom Thurmond [R, 1956-2002]
VA Yea Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]
VA Yea Sen. Paul Trible Jr. [R, 1983-1988]
WY Yea Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]
WY Yea Sen. Malcolm Wallop [R, 1977-1994]
VA Yea Sen. John Warner [R, 1979-2008]
CT Yea Sen. Lowell Weicker Jr. [R, 1971-1988]
CA Yea Sen. Pete Wilson [R, 1983-1991]
DEMOCRAT - YEA
MT Yea Sen. Max Baucus [D, 1978-2014]
DE Yea Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. [D, 1973-2009]
NM Yea Sen. Jeff Bingaman [D, 1983-2012]
WV Yea Sen. Robert Byrd [D, 1959-2010]
TX Yea Sen. Lloyd Bentsen Jr. [D, 1971-1993]
OK Yea Sen. David Boren [D, 1979-1994]
AR Yea Sen. Dale Bumpers [D, 1975-1998]
ND Yea Sen. Quentin Burdick [D, 1960-1992]
FL Yea Sen. Lawton Chiles Jr. [D, 1971-1988]
AZ Yea Sen. Dennis DeConcini [D, 1977-1994]
IL Yea Sen. Alan Dixon [D, 1981-1992]
MO Yea Sen. Thomas Eagleton [D, 1968-1986]
NE Yea Sen. James Exon [D, 1979-1996]
KY Yea Sen. Wendell Ford [D, 1974-1998]
OH Yea Sen. John Glenn Jr. [D, 1974-1998]
TN Yea Sen. Albert Gore Jr. [D, 1985-1992]
IA Yea Sen. Thomas "Tom" Harkin [D, 1985-2014]
AL Yea Sen. Howell Heflin [D, 1979-1996]
SC Yea Sen. Ernest "Fritz" Hollings [D, 1966-2004]
LA Yea Sen. John Johnston Jr. [D, 1972-1996]
VT Yea Sen. Patrick Leahy [D, 1975-2022]
MT Yea Sen. John Melcher [D, 1977-1988]
ME Yea Sen. George Mitchell [D, 1980-1994]
GA Yea Sen. Samuel Nunn [D, 1972-1996]
WI Yea Sen. William Proxmire [D, 1957-1988]
AR Yea Sen. David Pryor [D, 1979-1996]
MI Yea Sen. Donald Riegle Jr. [D, 1977-1994]
WV Yea Sen. John "Jay" Rockefeller IV [D.1985-2014]
TN Yea Sen. James Sasser [D, 1977-1994]
NE Yea Sen. Edward Zorinsky [D, 1976-1987]
REPUBLICAN - NAY
RI Nay Sen. John Chafee [R, 1976-1999]
MD Nay Sen. Charles Mathias Jr. [R, 1969-1986]
DEMOCRAT - NAY
CT Nay Sen. Christopher Dodd [D, 1981-2010]
HI Nay Sen. Daniel Inouye [D, 1963-2012]
MA Nay Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy [D, 1962-2009]
MA Nay Sen. John Kerry [D, 1985-2013]
NJ Nay Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D, 1982-2000]
MI Nay Sen. Carl Levin [D, 1979-2014]
MD Nay Sen. Paul Sarbanes [D, 1977-2006]
NY Nay Sen. Daniel Moynihan [D, 1977-2000]
CA Nay Sen. Alan Cranston [D, 1969-1992]
CO Nay Sen. Gary Hart [D, 1975-1986]
HI Nay Sen. Spark Matsunaga [D, 1977-1990]
OH Nay Sen. Howard Metzenbaum [D, 1976-1994]
RI Nay Sen. Claiborne Pell [D, 1961-1996]
REPUBLICAN - NOT VOTING
CO NV Sen. William Armstrong [R, 1979-1990]
CO NV Sen. Mark Hatfield [R, 1967-1996]
DEMOCRAT - NOT VOTING
NJ NV Sen. William "Bill" Bradley [D, 1979-1996]
LA NV Sen. Russell Long [D, 1948-1986]
IL NV Sen. Paul Simon [D, 1985-1996]
MS NV Sen. John Stennis [D, 1947-1988]
Do Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, and Hindus have the same God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system? Do athiests have God-given rights recognized by the U.S. justice system? What does the U.S. justice system consult to determine which rights are given by God Hisself? Whose God is considered the Giver? Does it matter whether the judge is a Catholic, Protestant, Jew, Muslim, or athiest? Or does the U.S. justice system recognize the common law right of self-defense?
While the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed, the right as brought forth from the English common law into the colonies and into the States, has inherent limitations. These limitations are part of the right, they define the right, they do not infringe upon the right. 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 (1765) It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose. It does not mean that today.
Comments (56 - 171) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestd) The Second Amendment's drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30-32.
#17. To: nolu chan (#11)
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
#18. To: nolu chan (#11)
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 ... limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47-54.
#19. To: nolu chan (#11)
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.
#20. To: nolu chan (#11)
It has never meant a right to carry any and all weapons for any purpose.
#21. To: misterwhite (#16)
Dubious, indeed.
#22. To: misterwhite (#18)
US v Miller does NOT say "those in common use for lawful purposes". It reads "of the kind in common use at the time". Period.
In 1795, Judge Wilson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in delivering his charge to the grand jury, in the Virginia Circuit, went into an elaborate dissertation on the jurisdiction of the federal courts over crimes, and after enumerating such as he deemed cognizable by the circuit court, he continued as follows: "In the foregoing catalogue, murder, man slaughter, robbery, piracy, forgery, perjury, bribery and extortion, are mentioned as crimes and offences; but they are neither defined nor described. For this reason we must refer to some pre-existing law for their definition or description. To what pre-existing law should this reference be made? This is a question of immence importance and extent. It must receive an answer, but I cannot, in this address, assign my reasons for the answer which I am about to give. The reference should be made to the common law. To the common law then let us resort for the definition or description of the crimes and offences which in the laws of the United States have been named, but have not been described or defined. You will in this manner, gentlemen, be furnished with a legal standard, by the judicious application of which you may ascertain with precision the true nature and qualities of such facts and transactions as shall become the objects of your consideration and research." (3 Wilson's Works, 357, 371.) And in the debates on the judiciary in 1802, to which I have before alluded, Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, in an able speech in the House of Representatives, said on this subject, (what was not disputed, so far as facts were concerned,) that "the judges of the United States have held generally that the Constitution of the United States was predicated upon an existing common law. Of the soundness of that opinion I never had a doubt. I should scarcely go too far were I to say, that stript of the common law, there would be neither constitution nor government. The constitution is unintelligible without reference, to the common law. And were we to go into our courts of justice with the mere statutes of the United States, not a step could be taken, not even a contempt could be punished. There would be no form of pleading, no principles of evidence, no rule of property. Without this law the constitution becomes a dead letter. For ten years it has been the doctrine of our courts that the common law was in force." (Debates on the Judiciary, 1802, p. 372. And see 1 Story's Comm. on the Const., 140, 141,; § 157, 158, and note 2; 2 ibid, 262 to 267 ; § 794 to 797 ; Rawle on the Const. 258.)
Connecticut - 1776
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
#23. To: misterwhite (#19)
Miller said nothing about "prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons". Quite the contrary. Miller said the second amendment ONLY protects militia-type weapons.
#24. To: misterwhite (#20)
According to Miller
#25. To: misterwhite (#18)
#26. To: nolu chan (#22)
By the interpretation of some, one must find the Framers intended to protect, and did protect, a right that did not then exist and had never existed in the colonies, the several states or the United States.
#27. To: nolu chan (#23)
Update to Heller and McDonald.
#28. To: nolu chan (#24)
Update to where you can say according to Heller and McDonald.
#29. To: A K A Stone (#25)
The second amendment protects the right to bear arms.
#30. To: misterwhite (#28)
[misterwhite #27] Heller and McDonald are flawed rulings.
[620]
#31. To: nolu chan (#30)
While Miller does not really conflict with Heller,
#32. To: nolu chan (#30)
"protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons." Post, at 637.
#33. To: nolu chan (#30)
Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.
#34. To: misterwhite (#31)
(Edited)
Miller protected militia-type weapons from federal infringement. Heller ruled that "common use" weapons are protected for self-defense in the home.
#35. To: misterwhite (#33)
Might be unconstitutional? The National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns ARE unconstitutional.
#36. To: misterwhite (#29)
#37. To: nolu chan (#34)
(Edited)
Anywhere that you project that Miller interpreted the Constitution differently than Heller, Miller is superseded by Heller. Your attempts to invoke Miller are futile and a waste of time.
#38. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Nope it is an individual right. The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
#39. To: nolu chan (#34)
On any particular point, a more recent holding supersedes any prior holding.
#40. To: nolu chan (#35)
If there were a conflict, Heller would supercede Miller or any prior precedent you may choose to drag up or misinterpret.
#41. To: A K A Stone, Vicomte13 (#37)
Case law is a waste of time. It isn't in the constitution.
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
Stare decisis be damned!
#43. To: nolu chan (#42)
#44. To: misterwhite (#43)
Me being a jerk? You lecture me on stare decisis while ignoring Cruikshank, Presser and Miller?
#45. To: nolu chan (#44)
As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
#46. To: misterwhite (#45)
As for the actual law, can you go out and lawfully purchase a newly manufactured machine gun, or can't you?
#47. To: nolu chan (#46)
Has it been that way since before you were born?
#48. To: misterwhite (#47)
#49. To: nolu chan (#48)
Passed in the House (amended) by voice vote.
Agreed to in the Senate by voice vote.
#50. To: nolu chan (#44)
#51. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries ....
#52. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
You accurately portray the legal system as it is, and particularly the system of precedent as it applies under the Common Law.
#53. To: misterwhite (#49)
Yep. Usually how controversial and unconstitutional laws are passed. No individual accountability.
#54. To: misterwhite, Vicomte13 (#51)
People have a "God-given right" to self-defense. Beyond that, it's up to the law.
#55. To: Vicomte13 (#50)
People having the "God-given right" to carry around unregistered machine guns, set up AA missile batteries in their yards on short final to JFK airport, and keeping a stock of mustard gas and a nuke in their basement, "just in case" cannot be what the Second Amendment means. The Constitution is not a suicide pact!
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]