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?

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine...
anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Suck it up, bleeding heart. Criminals WILL BE PUNISHED. Cry somewhere else.

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.

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.

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.

All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green

Bump to a thread that outs you ALL.

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.

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.

So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't.

Is it any wonder you're rapidly becoming known as a phony legal beagle?

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.

To clear that up, no, I have never said such a thing, and tpaine just likes to make things up.

tpaine crazily imagines the Second Amendment extends to any and all weapons, and I believe the right was carried over from the English common law and the English Declaration of Rights signed into law February 13, 1689 by William and Mary on the day of their ascension to the throne.

A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law.

All protestants have the right to bear arms for defense. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.

So, no, you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or other weapons not allowed by law. The question is not which part of the right can be infringed (none), but what is encompassed by the right. The right is one that the colonists enjoyed before July 4, 1776, and which they retained after the revolution, and which is constitutionally protected.

First, the people protected their right in their State constitutions:

North Carolina Constitution of 1776

XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.

Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strick subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Vermont Constitution of 1777

XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776

Sec. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Chief Justice Taft said that the Constitution "cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law...."

Ex Parte Grossman, 267 US 87, 118-19 (1925), Chief Justice Taft, Opinion of the Court

The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of. the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.

Jefferson wrote about constitutional interpretation that attempts to find meanings that may be squeezed out of the text.

Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Joohnson, June 12, 1833

2. on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past.

So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't.

No, you are still just being an asshole. And you could not answer the question of why Obergefell swept away every State law and State court opinion that conflicted with it, just as Barron did.

Yes.

So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't.

Is it any wonder you're rapidly becoming known as a phony legal beagle?

No, you are still just being an asshole.

No, I'm just commenting on your inability to explain yourself.

So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?.

No, in all cases since there has been a Federal court system, any State court holding about anything, including about the 2nd Amendent, in conflict with any Federal court opinion, is overturned and rendered null and void by the Federal court opinion.

I said that the State court opinion of 1846 that you cited (Nunn) could not overrule the precedent set the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (Barron) in 1833. To the extent that the State court opinion (Nunn) was in conflict with the SCOTUS opinion (Barron), it (Nunn) was null and void.

nolu chan at #11:

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 said that Obergefell "overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell.

nolu chan #40:

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.

Continuing at nolu chan #40:

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.

It is rather obvious that yours is a pitiful effort to obfuscate the fact that you are unable to answer the return question.

Damn, you are pitiful. You are so much like yukon, you are yukon. And you are a dishonorable asshole.

Why don't you know if "you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful?"

tpaine at #9:

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.

You are the shithead who claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). Way to go, shithead.

nolu chan at #10:

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."

You have not and cannot link to any such post and have failed to do so. Your horseshit at #12 did not do so, in your usual bullshit way when you are a cornered cockroach and have no answer.

tpaine content free bullshit at #12:

The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself.

You couldn't do it, could you, shithead.

As previously stated, I will never fail to show you the respect I feel you deserve.

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.

You --- ---- claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). ---

No, I claimed at #9, that Nunn destroyed YOUR position.

nolu chan at #10: Hey ---- 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, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing.

Bump to a thread that outs you ALL.

Nothing new folks, he can't help himself.

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.

Of course, I never said their was "NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." There are assholes and idiots, such as yourself, that hold the opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States.

Barron is Judicial precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1833, still being cited as such in 2016. All court opinions from any lower Federal court or any State court must yield.

This explains, embarrassingly, why Obergefell struck down all conflicting State laws and court opinions, and why all states are legally required to recognize gay marriage.

- - - - -

You --- ---- claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). ---

No, I claimed at #9, that Nunn destroyed YOUR position.

As Nunn, by a State court, did nothing because it was contrary to the holding of SCOTUS in Barron, it did nothing to destroy my position. You comment only identifed you as an incompetent fool.

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.

Barron is Judicial precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1833, still being cited as such in 2016. All court opinions from any lower Federal court or any State court must yield.

Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):

1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. P. 4.

[...]

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

- - - - -

nolu chan at #10: Hey ---- 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..

As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't.

- - - - -

And, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing.

I am not obsessing. I am documenting, for the world to see, that are a blithering idiot who has no clue what he is talking about.

Please continue your assistance to my noble mission.

He loves Nunn because it asserts that concealed weapons bans are permissible under the Second Amendment. He's a closet gun grabber.

If that were why the incompetent nutcase loves a State court opinion, he would be far better served citing Federal U.S. Supreme Court opinions.

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897) (7-1)

The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial.

- - - - -

Heller 554 US 570, 626 (2008)

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 imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26]

[Footnote 26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)

Slip op. at 11:

In the late 19th century, the Court began to considerwhether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States frominfringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884) (due process does not require grand jury indictment); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897) (due process prohibits States from taking of private property for public use without just compensation). Five features of the approach taken during the ensuing era should be noted.

First, the Court viewed the due process question as entirely separate from the question whether a right was aprivilege or immunity of national citizenship. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 99 (1908).

Second, the Court explained that the only rights protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause were those rights “of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” Ibid. See also, e.g., Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947); Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932). While it was “possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action [might] also be safeguarded against state action,” the Court stated, this was “not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments.” Twining, supra, at 99.

Slip op. at 39:

It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.

lu chan at #10: Hey ---- 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..

s I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't.

As I said, do it yourself, as I am NOT at your service.

- - - - -

And, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing.

I am not obsessing. I am documenting, for the world to see, that are a blithering idiot who has no clue what he is talking about --- Please continue your assistance to my noble mission.

The world? God but you are funny. The only thing anyone is seeing in our discussion is YOUR obsessive behavior about your NOBLE MISSON?

Thanks for the laughs..

We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller.

Have they no shame?

As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't.

As I said, do it yourself, as I am NOT at your service.

As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't.

As no such post exists, I will not look for one. It's just your bullshit that you cannot defend about a non-existent post.

As if you would not link to such a post if you could. You are such a sorry sack of shit.

There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller.

There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions and a bullshit non-response.

[tpaine #9] 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.

Numbnuts asserted that a State court opinion destroyed the still standing 1833 precedent set by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore, with thousands of supporting Federal opinions since. Numbnuts hallucinates that a State court can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.

Of course, I never claimed there was "NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." tpaine and some misguided souls have such opinions. tpaine and his clueless opinions do not overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution and its interpretation is the supreme law of the land.

Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old.

There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller.

Have they no shame?

There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions ---

How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed.

--- and a bullshit non-response.

Your dreaming again. My response cleared up YOUR bullshit.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

nothing of what I see on this thread makes damn sense at all. Nothing.

I've read Halbrooks book and agree with his positions almost completely.

My opponents here do not. In particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights.

Does that make sense to you?

in particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights

All States of the union have their own Constitutions. However, their Constitutions have to be concomitant with the original Bills of Rights to the United States Constitution. They cannot choose to ignore certain parts of those inalienable Rights as secured by the U.S. Constitution.

My opponents here do not. In particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights.

Does that make sense to you?

All States of the union have their own Constitutions. However, their Constitutions have to be concomitant with the original Bills of Rights to the United States Constitution. They cannot choose to ignore certain parts of those inalienable Rights as secured by the U.S. Constitution.

Well put, we agree..

Now try getting that truth across to the canary Klan.

1) identify what is the meaning of "militia". Who are they? What classification do you fall under?

2) Get ahold of Halbrooks book, That Every Man Be Armed and start reading.

3) Get ahold of The Federalist Papers because there are numerous references to what our Founding Fathers stood on regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Most of them were strong supporters of the Second Amendment because of the concern of professional standing armies in times of declarations of war and/or when a President turns into a modern day Benedict Arnold and turns his army against the common people.

I would strongly suggest that you guys (and gals) get the book entitled That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook because nothing of what I see on this thread makes damn sense at all. Nothing. That the right to keep and bear Militia Arms is found in United States v. Miller (1939) And that according to Title 10 Sec 311 (b) (2) We are the militia

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

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.

For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens.

The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government.

tpaine #9: "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."

Repeated at #12, #20

misterwhite and I were having a pleasant conversation about the early gun laws largely concerning concealed weapons. I provided the opinion in Nunn v. State 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846). Nunn involved concealed weapons laws and spoke of the earlier Kentucky case, Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822) and the Alabama case State v. Reid, (Ala. 1840), also involving state concealed weapons laws.

Nunn is harmless. It does not destroy anybody's position on whether the Bill of Rights restrained the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. And then tpaine came along to defecate upon the thread, carryuing on an argument from another thread.

As Nunn was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), it could never survive legal challenge. tpaine continued to prattle on that the Supreme Court opinion made no difference and repeat that the state court opinion in Nunn destroyed by position that the Bill of Rights did not restrain the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment.

By an act of sheer good fortune, I not only have the opinion in Barron but I also have the Georgia Supreme Court opinion in State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874).

State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874)

2. The other question made in this record is a far graver one. It is insisted that the act describing the offense charged and fixing the penalty, is an infringement of the right of the citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the United States of March 4th, 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States. And this would seem to be the inevitable conclusion from the history of these amendments as well as from their nature and even their terms. I do not myself assent to that other limitation of the legislative powers of our general assembly insisted upon in the argument, and sometimes announced by courts, to-wit: the "higher law," which is appealed to as above even the constitution. At last, therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution.

Nunn, which was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron regarding a supposed application of the Bill of Rights to the states, was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court 142 years ago.

Have they no shame?

There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions ---

How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed.

Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? Must you be so obsessed?

Get help.

There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller.

There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791).

Notably, Heller was written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. The dissent was by Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg.

All of the conservative justices joined to make the Heller majority. All of the ultra liberals joined in dissent. tpaine joins the dissent.

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575-76 (2007):

Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent.

We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007).

Heller was about the right to keep and bear arms in one's home in the Federal District of Washington, D.C. Heller commented that "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..."

Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2007):

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 imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26]

[26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.

Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Only afterward, did the courts selectively incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment and make them applicable to the states.

tpaine thinks he is the supreme authority in exposition of the law of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly disagrees.

Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958):

Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.”

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old.

One can see North Carolina in 1844 recognizing the precedential authority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States.

State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 182, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844)

Nash, J . We are of opinion there was error in the judgmeut pronounced by the presiding judge. On the argument here it has been urged that the act of 1840 (ch. 30) under which the defendant was prosecuted is unconstitutional, being in violation of Article II of the amended Constitution of the United States, and also of articles 3 and 17 of the Bill of Rights of this State. We do not agree to the correctness of either of these objections. The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the United States for their own government and not for that of the different States. The limitations of power contained in it and expressed in general terms are necessarily confined to the General Government. It is now the settled construction of that instrument that no limitation upon the power of Government extends to or embraces the different States, unless they are mentioned, or it is expressed to be so intended. Barrow v. Baltimore, [sic - Barron] 7 Peters, 240; R. R. Davis, 19 N. C., 459. In Article II of the amended Constitution the States are neither mentioned nor referred to. It is, therefore, only restrictive of the powers of the Federal Government.

And the beat goes on...

Johnston v. Earle, 245 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1957)

In Bell v. Hood, the refusal of the district court to consider this question, and its affirmance by the court of appeals³ was reversed, and the cause returned to the district court to determine whether the complaint stated a federal cause of action.

³ Bell v. Hood, 9 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 96.

On its return to the district court, that court, in a very able opinion by Judge Mathes, held that no federal cause of action existed for the acts of federal officials violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.⁴ His reasoning is that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government,⁵ and not to individuals.⁶

⁴ Bell v. Hood, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 813.

⁵ That the Fifth Amendment applies only to the acts of the federal government is settled beyond doubt. See, e.g., Spies v. People of the State of Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 166, 8 S.Ct. 21, 31 L.Ed. 80; Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 476, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048. In Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408, the Court said: "* * * [F]or more than one hundred years, ever since Barron v. [Mayor and City Council of City of] Baltimore [1833], 7 Pet. 243 [ 32 U.S. 243], 8 L.Ed. 672, one of the principles of our Constitution has been that these [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 650, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. [State of] Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380, 26 S.Ct. 73, 75, 50 L.Ed. 234; Twining v. [State of] New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97." 322 U.S. at page 490, 64 S.Ct. 1083.

⁶ Mr. Justice Black stated in Bell v. Hood that "whether federal courts can grant money recovery for damages said to have been suffered as a result of federal officers violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments" is a question which "has never been specifically decided by this Court." 327 U.S. at page 684, 66 S.Ct. 777. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, however, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that there was no civil action for damages based upon the Fourth Amendment against officers who had violated it seizing plaintiff's property. Speaking of the possible nonfederal liability of the offending officers, the Court said: "What remedies the defendant may have against them we need not inquire, as the 4th Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." 232 U.S. at page 398, 34 S.Ct. 346.

In fine, the federal government has created no cause of action enforceable in its courts for such torts under the state law, and hence the district court here lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter.

Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed?

Get help.

There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791).

The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones.

There you see it again sports fans, --- nolu is unable to even understand the concept under discussion.

Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals.

Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals.

Id say any asshole that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights... needs mental health, kookifonian.

Id say any ---- that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights...

I'm renting a cabin in the mountains from a corporation (my son is one of the owners) that pays very little properly tax on our fixer upper resort acreage. -- Eat your heart out.

And yes, I support our constitutional rights against you canary Klan weirdos.

So get a life..

Have another cocktail.