| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Roedy Green" |
| Date: |
30 Jan 2004 09:38:52 PM |
| Object: |
Second Amendment |
In the Michael Moore's movie Bowling For Columbine is a South Park
style cartoon, a capsule history of America. It states that just after
the civil war it was made illegal for a black person to own a gun.
How was this justified?
Did the second amendments not yet exist?
Were blacks not considered citizens?
Did judges just not worry about letting the constitution get in the
way of protecting decent white folks?
Whatever it was, it is could be ghost hanging around to allow a
Patriot Act III to block Americans from owning guns to an extent
undreamed by even the liberalest liberal.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
| User: "Godzilla Pimp" |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
30 Jan 2004 09:55:22 PM |
|
|
"Roedy Green" <look-at-the-website@mindprod.com> wrote in message
news:qi8m105ks9a0n2hqa3pd3a12g0pqj9r236@4ax.com...
In the Michael Moore's movie Bowling For Columbine is a South Park
style cartoon, a capsule history of America. It states that just after
the civil war it was made illegal for a black person to own a gun.
How was this justified?
Did the second amendments not yet exist?
Were blacks not considered citizens?
Did judges just not worry about letting the constitution get in the
way of protecting decent white folks?
Blacks were considered sub-human, as indeed they are. The Constitution was
not written for them, nor dippy females. The wisdom of the Founders is
becoming more apparent every day.
GP
GP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
30 Jan 2004 11:29:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:55:22 GMT, "Godzilla Pimp" <god@pimpster.org>
wrote or quoted :
Blacks were considered sub-human, as indeed they are. The Constitution was
not written for them, nor dippy females. The wisdom of the Founders is
becoming more apparent every day.
Science disagrees with you. There is more genetic diversity in a
single troop of chimpanzees than in all of humanity. We humans are
almost genetic clones. The differences between races are superficial,
amount of melanin, curliness of hair, flatness of nose. They are
minor optimisations for tropical climate.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
31 Jan 2004 08:40:56 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:38:52 GMT, Roedy Green
<look-at-the-website@mindprod.com> wrote or quoted :
In the Michael Moore's movie Bowling For Columbine is a South Park
style cartoon, a capsule history of America. It states that just after
the civil war it was made illegal for a black person to own a gun.
How was this justified?
Did the second amendments not yet exist?
Were blacks not considered citizens?
Did judges just not worry about letting the constitution get in the
way of protecting decent white folks?
The bill of rights was enacted in 1791, which contained the second
amendment. The gun law outlawing guns to blacks came shortly after
the NRA was founded in 1871, incidentally the year the KKK was
declared illegal.
So there must have been some second amendment rationalisation:
e.g.
blacks can't be in the militia.
blacks are not citizens.
The Bush response "Who the ***** cares about the constitution? Do the
"right" thing."
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
31 Jan 2004 08:36:33 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:38:52 GMT, Roedy Green
<look-at-the-website@mindprod.com> wrote or quoted :
In the Michael Moore's movie Bowling For Columbine is a South Park
style cartoon, a capsule history of America. It states that just after
the civil war it was made illegal for a black person to own a gun.
Here is a bit of the history of the legal opinions interpreting the
meaning of these words of the second amendment:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.”
http://www.firearmslawcenter.org/content/Federallawsummary.asp
In United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the last case in
which the United States Supreme Court ruled
directly on the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court refused to
divorce the goal set forth in the modifying clause of the Amendment,
that is, a well-regulated state militia, from the activity described
in the final clauses, that is, the keeping and bearing of arms.
Stating that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to
“assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of the
state militia,” the high court rejected the notion urged by the Miller
defendants that their indictments for transporting an unregistered
sawed-off shotgun across state lines violated their alleged
constitutional “right to bear Arms.” Id. at 176. Because the
defendants had made no showing that their possession or use of the gun
“had some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a
well-regulated militia,” the Court held that the Second Amendment
afforded them no protection against the federal law under which they
were charged. Id. Notably, the evidentiary issue considered by the
Court was whether the defendants’ possession or use of the weapon bore
any reasonable relation to participation in the organized state
militia, and the Court rejected defendants’ proposition that the
amendment protects an isolated, individual right to possess a firearm.
Id.
This definitive holding by the highest court of the branch of
government charged under our Constitution with interpreting that
document is, under our system of jurisprudence, binding on all lower
courts. Since Miller, no federal appellate or state appellate court
has invalidated a firearms regulation on Second Amendment grounds.
In one recent case, United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir.
2001), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected a
Second Amendment challenge to a federal law prohibiting firearms
possession by persons subject to a domestic restraining order. The
Emerson case received considerable publicity because the trial court
had, in a clear departure from prior case law, struck the law down on
Second Amendment grounds. Although all three judges on the Fifth
Circuit panel agreed that the law was constitutional, two of the
judges expressed their personal view that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to possess firearms. This view is dictum
(i.e., unnecessary to the outcome of the case) and is not binding on
other courts. For a summary of Emerson and other relevant federal
appellate decisions, see the Summary of Second Amendment Case Law.
Although the Miller case is the only U.S. Supreme Court case directly
ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has not
been silent on the issue since the holding. In Lewis v. United
States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court was faced with a challenge to a
federal law criminalizing possession of a firearm by a convicted
felon, a challenge brought under the equal protection clause. If the
law had infringed a fundamental constitutional right, the Court would
have been bound by its own prior rulings to apply what is called a
“strict standard” of review of the challenged law. Where such a right
is not impacted, the review standard is the lower, rational basis
review. In Lewis, the Court used the rational basis standard of
review to determine the constitutional issue, specifically noting that
the challenged law did not “trench on any constitutionally protected
liberties.” Id. at 65, n.8.
The high court’s actions have also been consistent with the Miller
holding. In numerous cases in which the lower federal courts rejected
individual “right to bear Arms” challenges to gun regulations and the
losing plaintiffs have sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
Court has declined to review those cases. See, e.g. Gillespie v. City
of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1116 (2000) (Second Amendment establishes no right to possess a
firearm apart from the role possession of that gun might play in
maintaining a state militia).
In addition, the Second Amendment constrains only the federal
government. U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1876) (the
amendments that make up the Bill of Rights were enacted as constraints
on congressional action, not state or local action). Under the
incorporation doctrine, the Court has held that certain of the Bill of
Rights amendments are “incorporated” by the Fourteenth Amendment as a
constraint on state and local action. However, until the Court has
held specifically that a given amendment is “incorporated,” it is only
a constraint on Congress, not on state or local governments. The
Second Amendment has never been “incorporated” and is therefore not a
constraint to state or local regulation. See Quilici v. Village of
Morton Grove, 695 F.2d 261, 270 (1982).
Unlike the federal constitution, some state constitutions do contain
“right to bear arms” provisions which state specifically that the
right protected is an individual right. In general, these provisions
have been interpreted by the courts to be consistent with a wide range
of firearms regulations, including, for example, bans on classes of
firearms. (See, e.g. Quilici, 695 F.2d at 267-268 upholding Morton
Grove's ban on handguns against a challenge based on the Illinois
Constitutional right to bear arms).
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Bush murdered her boy friend " |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
31 Jan 2004 11:45:36 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 03:38:52 GMT, Roedy Green
<look-at-the-website@mindprod.com> wrote:
In the Michael Moore's movie Bowling For Columbine is a South Park
style cartoon, a capsule history of America. It states that just after
the civil war it was made illegal for a black person to own a gun.
That's still true to some extent. The govt has made illegal drug
possession into a felony and the 1968 GCA says felons cannot have
guns.
How was this justified?
Did the second amendments not yet exist?
Were blacks not considered citizens?
Did judges just not worry about letting the constitution get in the
way of protecting decent white folks?
Whatever it was, it is could be ghost hanging around to allow a
Patriot Act III to block Americans from owning guns to an extent
undreamed by even the liberalest liberal.
As it stands now anyone convicted of a felony or a domestic violence
misdemeanor or dishonorably discharged from the military can never
have a gun. Look for bush to greatly extend the gun ban to other
groups - all in the name of fighting terrorism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roedy Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Second Amendment |
31 Jan 2004 08:20:30 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 10:45:36 -0700, Laura Bush murdered her boy friend
<> wrote or quoted :
As it stands now anyone convicted of a felony or a domestic violence
misdemeanor or dishonorably discharged from the military can never
have a gun.
This would include possession of a joint, the easiest way to bust an
urban black guy.
I have a web page that puts the case for legalising marijuana.
http://mindprod.com/marijuana.html
It is on a webring. If you chase the ring you will find sites that
discuss the history of marijuana prohibition. One theory is that it
was enacted as an excuse to bust black people that could not be used
against whites, back historically when marijuana was primarily a black
phenomenon.
Our local weekly reported the first death by marijuana overdose. Some
English guy ate several kilos of high grade marijuana. He bragged he
had smoked over 23,000 joints over his life before this Guiness Book
of Records style stunt.
In Florida, Kathleen Harris took black men off the voting roles who
had a felony conviction, who shared a surname with anyone who did, or
who shared a birthday.
http://ericblumrich.com/gta.html
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
Coaching, problem solving, economical contract programming.
See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/jgloss.html for The Java Glossary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
