| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ms My Rights" |
| Date: |
08 Dec 2006 01:45:16 PM |
| Object: |
The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
If this gets tested to the Supreme Court and we lose, at least we'll
know we've lost our freedom and our country for good. Then it would be
time for the states that still wanted to be free, to start pushing for
legal seccession in the courts.
_http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtml?s=ic_
(http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.ne
wsmax.co m/archives/ic/2006/12/7/211001.shtm
l?s=ic)
Dec. 7, 2006Scope of 2nd Amendment Questioned
In a case that could shape firearms laws nationwide, attorneys for
the District of Columbia argued Thursday that the Second Amendment
right to bear arms
applies only to militias, not individuals.
The city defended as constitutional its long-standing ban on
handguns, a law that some gun opponents have advocated elsewhere.
Civil liberties groups and pro-gun organizations say the ban in
unconstitutional.
At issue in the case before a federal appeals court is whether the
Second Amendment right to "keep and bear arms" applies to all people
or only to "a well
regulated militia." The Bush administration has endorsed individual
gun-ownership rights but the Supreme Court has never settled the
issue.
If the dispute makes it to the high court, it would be the first case
in nearly 70 years to address the amendment's scope. The court
disappointed gun owner groups in 2003 when it refused to take up a
challenge to California's ban
on assault weapons.
In the Washington, D.C., case, a lower-court judge told six city
residents in 2004 that they did not have a constitutional right to
own handguns. The plaintiffs include residents of high-crime
neighborhoods who want guns for protection.
Courts have upheld bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns
but this case is unusual because it involves a prohibition on all
pistols. Voters passed a similar ban in San Francisco last year but
a judge ruled it violated state law. The Washington case is not
clouded by state law and hinges directly on the Constitution.
"We interpret the Second Amendment in military terms," said Todd Kim,
the District's solicitor general, who told the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit that the city would also have
had the authority to ban
all weapons.
"Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second
Amendment the way you do," Judge Laurence Silberman said. "It
doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
Of the three judges, Silberman was the most critical of Kim's
argument and noted that, despite the law, handguns were common in
the District.
Silberman and Judge Thomas B. Griffith seemed to wrestle, however,
with the meaning of the amendment's language about militias. If a
well-regulated militia is no longer needed, they asked, is the right
to bear arms still necessary?
"That's quite a task for any court to decide that a right is no
longer necessary," Alan Gura, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
replied. "If we decide that it's no longer necessary, can we erase
any part of the Constitution?"
--
Have you watched America: Freedom to Fascism yet?
Free video: http://tinyurl.com/snr7b
IF YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR LIBERTARIANS, YOU'RE ONLY VOTING FOR YOUR
RULERS! If the government wasn't allowed to initiate force, the vote
wouldn't be that important. It's only important because they can.
.
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 10:42:08 AM |
|
|
In article <457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
RT
They didn't mention anything about "standard issue" in the ruling, just
a military use and shotguns have been used by the military since
shotguns have been made.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:19:50 AM |
|
|
James Beck <jim@reallykillersystems.com> said in
<news:MPG.1fe9f76a4c72cdcd989db6@newsgroups.bellsouth.net> on Wed 13 Dec
2006 10:42:08a:
In article <457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon
at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by
the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&i
nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
RT
They didn't mention anything about "standard issue" in the ruling, just
a military use and shotguns have been used by the military since
shotguns have been made.
In his "Viewpoint Regarding US v Miller", which ends his compilation of
court documents related to that case, Patrick Aultice wrote:
"Before the decade is out, the Supreme Court will be forced to deal with
this issue and bring forth a far-reaching decision concerning what the
Second Amendment really means. Let us hope they consider the spirit and
words of the gentlemen who brought it into being."
That was 1991.
And that's how it goes, recognition of a personal gun right under the
Second Amendment's always just a little ways in the future, just around the
corner, like Parker v DC, there'll always be something to hang your hope
on, but when you get there you'll always be disappointed, because your
dream is to have something you don't really deserve, instead of the same
rights you do deserve that you always had before the gunlobby came along.
__________________
The treasure which you think not worth taking trouble and
pains to find, this one alone is the real treasure you are
longing for all your life. The glittering treasure you are
hunting for day and night lies buried on the other side of
that hill yonder.
- B. Traven, Treasure of the Sierra Madre
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:54:24 PM |
|
|
James Beck wrote:
In article <457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
RT
They didn't mention anything about "standard issue" in the ruling, just
a military use and shotguns have been used by the military since
shotguns have been made.
Yes, they did:
it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Beck" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Dec 2006 09:38:03 AM |
|
|
In article <4580E710.F65C24A@hotmMOVEail.com>,
says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com>,
says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
RT
They didn't mention anything about "standard issue" in the ruling, just
a military use and shotguns have been used by the military since
shotguns have been made.
Yes, they did:
it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment
Do not equate "ordinary" with SI.
A "sniper rifle" isn't SI and yet I doubt you would say it isn't
"ordinary military equipment".
AND, they qualified that with "it is not within judicial notice", so
that just means they recognized that they were bound by the evidence
presented to them and just because it had not been presented does not
mean it does not exist. Once again, absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:22:16 AM |
|
|
James Beck wrote:
In article <4580E710.F65C24A@hotmMOVEail.com>,
says...
James Beck wrote:
says...
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns were not in
use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
They didn't mention anything about "standard issue" in the ruling, just
a military use and shotguns have been used by the military since
shotguns have been made.
Yes, they did:
it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the
ordinary military equipment
Do not equate "ordinary" with SI.
A "sniper rifle" isn't SI and yet I doubt you would say it isn't
"ordinary military equipment".
AND, they qualified that with "it is not within judicial notice", so
that just means they recognized that they were bound by the evidence
presented to them and just because it had not been presented does not
mean it does not exist. Once again, absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.
If it ain't there, it doesn't count.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:22:01 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:457F7DF6.C3527B97@hotmMOVEail.com:
James Beck wrote:
In article <457ED001.22B00C39@hotmMOVEail.com>,
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon
at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by
the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&i
nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the appellees and
one would not expect the appellant to present that evidence.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
13 Dec 2006 11:56:15 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon
at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by
the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&i
nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the appellees and
one would not expect the appellant to present that evidence.
Not necessary.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Dec 2006 02:14:29 PM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4580E77F.C6FA3B80@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the
weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was
in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=30
7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the appellees
and one would not expect the appellant to present that evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 12:44:55 AM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the
weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was
in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=30
7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the appellees
and one would not expect the appellant to present that evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Dec 2006 10:37:20 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:458395E7.13ED3F62@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the
weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which
was in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot
guns were not in use by the military, when in fact they
were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol
=30 7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the
appellees and one would not expect the appellant to present that
evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
To show use in the military arena, apparently it was. The USSC didn't
seem to know a sawed off shotgun had militia or military application.
They even made a point of mentioning it.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
18 Dec 2006 09:54:50 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the
weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which
was in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot
guns were not in use by the military, when in fact they
were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol
=30 7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the
appellees and one would not expect the appellant to present that
evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
To show use in the military arena, apparently it was. The USSC didn't
seem to know a sawed off shotgun had militia or military application.
They even made a point of mentioning it.
Still doesn't make it necessary.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
19 Dec 2006 10:38:14 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4587628A.6F4702E2@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as
the weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun,
which was in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot
guns were not in use by the military, when in fact they
were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&
vol =30 7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard
issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the
appellees and one would not expect the appellant to present
that evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
To show use in the military arena, apparently it was. The USSC
didn't seem to know a sawed off shotgun had militia or military
application. They even made a point of mentioning it.
Still doesn't make it necessary.
It does from the appellee's side. Naturally not from the appellant's.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
22 Dec 2006 10:24:37 PM |
|
|
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4587628A.6F4702E2@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as
the weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off shotgun,
which was in use by the military at the time.
For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot
guns were not in use by the military, when in fact they
were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&
vol =30 7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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.
...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard
issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the
appellees and one would not expect the appellant to present
that evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
To show use in the military arena, apparently it was. The USSC
didn't seem to know a sawed off shotgun had militia or military
application. They even made a point of mentioning it.
Still doesn't make it necessary.
It does from the appellee's side. Naturally not from the appellant's.
Which changes nothing.
RT
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
23 Dec 2006 11:15:32 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:458CAF85.76BCC89C@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:4587628A.6F4702E2@hotmMOVEail.com:
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
James Beck wrote:
traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com says...
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake,
as the weapon at issue in the case was a sawed off
shotgun, which was in use by the military at the
time. For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed
off shot guns were not in use by the military, when
in fact they were.
No.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=
us& vol =30 7&i nvol=174 ...
Certainly 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. ...
OK, so they were ignorant to the facts.
How would one go about and correct their mistake?
The pertinent fact is that the shotguns were not standard
issue.
The pertinent fact is that there was no appearance by the
appellees and one would not expect the appellant to present
that evidence.
Not necessary.
Who do you think should have presented that information?
You're assuming it was necessary.
To show use in the military arena, apparently it was. The USSC
didn't seem to know a sawed off shotgun had militia or military
application. They even made a point of mentioning it.
Still doesn't make it necessary.
It does from the appellee's side. Naturally not from the
appellant's.
Which changes nothing.
Only because it is too late. Not because it may or may not have brought
more to the table in the first place.
--
Sleep well tonight.........RD (The Sandman)
http://home.comcast.net/~rdsandman
"Tis far better to burn the flag while wrapped in the Constitution than
to burn the Constitution while wrapped in the flag."
".357Mag...my personal version of Homeland Security"
"We'll fill landfills with tons and tons of garbage, but when our trash
is shaped like a human, we [somehow] feel the need to keep it around."
John P...2006
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Bianchi" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 04:17:54 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:49:00 -0900, Dana wrote:
And also this is where the Justices made a mistake, as the weapon at issue
in the case was a sawed off shotgun, which was in use by the military at
the time. For some unknown reason the Justices said sawed off shot guns
were not in use by the military, when in fact they were.
Not to be overly nit-picky, but SHORT BARREL shotguns were in use by
the military. eg, the Winchester M-12 pump action 'trench broom' used in
WW1, by military prison guards, etc. However, this was NOT by any means a
'sawn off' shotgun, in fact the barrel was at least 18" long. I'm not all
that familiar with the dimensions of the shotgun at issue in Miller, but it
likely had a barrel deliberately cut down to just ahead of the forearm,
which would make it 'prox 10" long. Individually modified field expedients
notwithstanding, the military has never issued a 'sawn off' shotgun.
But in todays age, tanks and Bazookas are in common use by the military.
So according to the miller decision those weapons are covered by the 2nd.
Well, sorta. Bazooka's are more or less obsolete -- though they do
show up from time to time. And a tank is merely an armored bulldozer with a
cannon instead of a blade (better it'd be to refer to the armament of a
tank). But your point is taken and is very valid. Miller does refer to these
types of military issue firearms as being protected by the 2nd.
Moving on to what the USSCt has said about the 2nd in the past, it
is significant that in nearly 100 cases in which individual rights are
discussed, the rights clause of the 2nd is quoted as being an individual
right among others. The vast majority of these uses do not mention the
militia clause.
"Supreme Court Gun Cases" Kopel, Hallbrook, Korwin <-- get this book.
--
jimbo@sonic.net
"There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary, and those who don't."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rich Travsky" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 10:12:04 AM |
|
|
Dana wrote:
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:DxReh.19371$U81.10211@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
The right is in relation to militias. Don't really have those anymore,
do
we?
The national Guard is the militia.
The national guard has been federalized, it is no longer a militia, it is
part of the standing army.
And if you look at the Miller decision, there are numerous quotes about
the
makeup of militias. Not one of them mention *women*.
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank.
Than you better reread the miller decision, not only does the miller imply
the 2nd is an individual right, but it also clearly states that the people
are to armed with like weapons that are being used in the military, so yes
it does allow individual right to have a Bazooka or even (if you could buy
one) a tank.
Bzzzt.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
...
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide
for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed
in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according
to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such
forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must
be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
...
Only in the context of a miltia. Don't have those any more.
RT
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 01:29:24 PM |
|
|
Bob uecker wrote:
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited. The
First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded
theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own a
bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control advocates
should stop misrepresenting it. "
This statement is fallacious. Let's dissect:
1) "right ..., is fundamental, but not unlimited"
No right is unlimited. Thomas Jefferson made this crystal clear:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
2) "The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell 'fire!'
in a crowded theater"
No amendment gives any right. The Amendments are "declaratory and
restrictive clauses". See the Preamble to the Amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I, among other things, prohibits Congress from enacting
legislation that abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing
less.
So, can someone yell "fire!" in an empty theater? Sure they can. So,
why can't they (capricious) yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Because
doing so would infringe on the equal rights of others -- others' rights
to be safe and secure. None of this has /ANYTHING/ to do with Amendment I.
I strongly suggest that all enlightened people dismiss (with extreme
prejudice I might add) this 'yell fire in a crowded theater' notion.
3) "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own..."
Again, Amendments don't give rights. See item 2 above.
4) "the right to own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position."
The Federal government has not been delegated the authority to control
the individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, or similar. Legislation is
based on delegated power from the people to the government. It doesn't
matter if it is a 'reasonable position' or not.
If there is no delegated power, then there can be no legislation. If
such legislation is desired by the People, then the People *MUST*
delegate the power -- there is no other way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 02:07:16 PM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:neZeh.4934$a14.2127@newsfe24.lga...
Bob uecker wrote:
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to
own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control
advocates should stop misrepresenting it. "
This statement is fallacious. Let's dissect:
1) "right ..., is fundamental, but not unlimited"
No right is unlimited. Thomas Jefferson made this crystal clear:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
2) "The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell 'fire!' in
a crowded theater"
No amendment gives any right. The Amendments are "declaratory and
restrictive clauses". See the Preamble to the Amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I, among other things, prohibits Congress from enacting
legislation that abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing
less.
So, can someone yell "fire!" in an empty theater? Sure they can. So, why
can't they (capricious) yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Because doing
so would infringe on the equal rights of others -- others' rights to be
safe and secure. None of this has /ANYTHING/ to do with Amendment I.
I strongly suggest that all enlightened people dismiss (with extreme
prejudice I might add) this 'yell fire in a crowded theater' notion.
3) "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own..."
Again, Amendments don't give rights. See item 2 above.
"shall not be infringed"
4) "the right to own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position."
The Federal government has not been delegated the authority to control the
individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, or similar. Legislation is based
on delegated power from the people to the government. It doesn't matter
if it is a 'reasonable position' or not.
If there is no delegated power, then there can be no legislation. If such
legislation is desired by the People, then the People *MUST* delegate the
power -- there is no other way.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob uecker" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 02:21:23 PM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:neZeh.4934$a14.2127@newsfe24.lga...
Bob uecker wrote:
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in a
crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to
own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control
advocates should stop misrepresenting it. "
This statement is fallacious. Let's dissect:
1) "right ..., is fundamental, but not unlimited"
No right is unlimited. Thomas Jefferson made this crystal clear:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
2) "The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell 'fire!' in
a crowded theater"
No amendment gives any right. The Amendments are "declaratory and
restrictive clauses". See the Preamble to the Amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I, among other things, prohibits Congress from enacting
legislation that abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing
less.
So, can someone yell "fire!" in an empty theater? Sure they can. So, why
can't they (capricious) yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Because doing
so would infringe on the equal rights of others -- others' rights to be
safe and secure. None of this has /ANYTHING/ to do with Amendment I.
Its a simple example of the limitation of free speech. Free speech cant be
the cause of physical harm or violate other codes like causing a riot that
may insue from the scream of "fire."
I strongly suggest that all enlightened people dismiss (with extreme
prejudice I might add) this 'yell fire in a crowded theater' notion.
3) "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own..."
Again, Amendments don't give rights. See item 2 above.
So we have no rights? rigghht. They just called it the Bill of Rights cause
it sounded snappy.
4) "the right to own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position."
The Federal government has not been delegated the authority to control the
individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, or similar. Legislation is based
on delegated power from the people to the government. It doesn't matter
if it is a 'reasonable position' or not.
Tell that to the ATF, and FBI, and US Military.
If there is no delegated power, then there can be no legislation. If such
legislation is desired by the People, then the People *MUST* delegate the
power -- there is no other way.
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
BTW My legion post owns a 75mm Pack Howitzer which is fully functional. A
155m Field piece that came functional.(after years of winter weather and
lack of upkeep im sure it wouldn't work now). We also own a M60A3 Patton II
tank that would also function with proper preparation to the motor. All of
which are legal under our state laws. We have the right. The regulation of
these weapons are under state authority. Regualtion such as firing the main
gun of the tank. Obvioulsy a big no no for many reasons. The gun breach must
sealed and rednered inoperative permently. If we are going to drive it..wich
we wouldnt cause thats stupid. But if we wanted to we'd have to comply with
regulations of the state. IE rubber treads limited distance...police escort,
ETC. Some smaller tanks like an old Sherman are used in Parades in some
communites and owning the tank is a right by the 2nd Ammendment. How and
what they can do with the tank is state regualtions. The weapons were obtain
from the US goverment under the retualtions for obtaining such wepaons for
private ownership.
A Bazooka would be similar. But people own them cause they have that right.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
10 Dec 2006 04:05:18 PM |
|
|
"Bob uecker" <bobU@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7%Zeh.19467$L32.5496@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com...
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:neZeh.4934$a14.2127@newsfe24.lga...
Bob uecker wrote:
"The thrust of the unanimous opinion in Miller is that the right to
bear
arms, like the right to free speech, is fundamental, but not unlimited.
The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell "fire!" in
a
crowded theater. The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to
own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable position. Gun control
advocates should stop misrepresenting it. "
This statement is fallacious. Let's dissect:
1) "right ..., is fundamental, but not unlimited"
No right is unlimited. Thomas Jefferson made this crystal clear:
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within
limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's
will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."
http://www.whatquote.com/quotes/Thomas-Jefferson/37799-Rightful-liberty-is-.htm
2) "The First Amendment does not give someone the right to yell 'fire!'
in
a crowded theater"
No amendment gives any right. The Amendments are "declaratory and
restrictive clauses". See the Preamble to the Amendments:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Amendment I, among other things, prohibits Congress from enacting
legislation that abridges the freedom of speech. Nothing more, nothing
less.
So, can someone yell "fire!" in an empty theater? Sure they can. So,
why
can't they (capricious) yell "fire!" in a crowded theater? Because
doing
so would infringe on the equal rights of others -- others' rights to be
safe and secure. None of this has /ANYTHING/ to do with Amendment I.
Its a simple example of the limitation of free speech. Free speech cant be
the cause of physical harm or violate other codes like causing a riot that
may insue from the scream of "fire."
I strongly suggest that all enlightened people dismiss (with extreme
prejudice I might add) this 'yell fire in a crowded theater' notion.
3) "The Second Amendment doesn't give someone the right to own..."
Again, Amendments don't give rights. See item 2 above.
So we have no rights? rigghht. They just called it the Bill of Rights
cause
it sounded snappy.
Actually the Constitution does not give you any rights, nor does the BOR
give you any rights.
What the Constitution and the BOR does is protect the rights you have from
government infringement.
4) "the right to own a bazooka or a tank. This is a reasonable
position."
The Federal government has not been delegated the authority to control
the
individual ownership of bazookas, tanks, or similar. Legislation is
based
on delegated power from the people to the government. It doesn't matter
if it is a 'reasonable position' or not.
Tell that to the ATF, and FBI, and US Military.
If there is no delegated power, then there can be no legislation. If
such
legislation is desired by the People, then the People *MUST* delegate
the
power -- there is no other way.
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does, it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 09:12:25 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 08:14:18 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Ezefh.4681$uY1.707@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details
of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right
is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
What an idiotic question, no wonder you guys on the left are so easily led
by your leftist masters, you guys cannot think for yourself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
12 Dec 2006 07:24:21 AM |
|
|
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12ns3v6bpuavu4c@corp.supernews.com...
"Bob" <no@email.address> wrote in message
news:Ezefh.4681$uY1.707@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details
of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right
is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the
state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
What an idiotic question, no wonder you guys on the left are so easily led
by your leftist masters, you guys cannot think for yourself.
I'm not on the left. Any more brilliant
statements you'd like to make?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 10:29:44 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state
been delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its
constitution?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 10:41:30 AM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:0Iffh.174925$2t1.65739@newsfe18.lga...
Bob wrote:
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state been
delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 11:55:31 AM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:0Iffh.174925$2t1.65739@newsfe18.lga...
Bob wrote:
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can make
no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state been
delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
Then the state constitution is null and void.
The power over rights cannot be delegated.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 01:17:50 PM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:EYgfh.5155$a14.2043@newsfe24.lga...
Bob wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:0Iffh.174925$2t1.65739@newsfe18.lga...
Bob wrote:
"Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:12np10cbv0ugfb3@corp.supernews.com...
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details
of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right
is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the
state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state been
delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
Then the state constitution is null and void.
The power over rights cannot be delegated.
Let me try again. Do you believe the state can
regulate the press in the same manner you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 01:56:49 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The details
of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The right
is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the
state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state been
delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
Then the state constitution is null and void.
The power over rights cannot be delegated.
Let me try again. Do you believe the state can
regulate the press in the same manner you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms?
1) No, presuming that "regulate the press" means 'regulate free speech'.
2) I don't know what you are referring to when you write: "...you
suggest the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms...". I haven't
made any such suggestion, as far as I'm aware of.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 02:12:11 PM |
|
|
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:EKifh.1002$oS1.275@newsfe20.lga...
Bob wrote:
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The
details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The
right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the
state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state
been delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its
constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
Then the state constitution is null and void.
The power over rights cannot be delegated.
Let me try again. Do you believe the state can
regulate the press in the same manner you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms?
1) No, presuming that "regulate the press" means 'regulate free speech'.
2) I don't know what you are referring to when you write: "...you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms...". I haven't made any
such suggestion, as far as I'm aware of.
Please accept my apology.
I thought it was you who posted "The state
on the other hand can regulate in this arena,
unless the state constitution limits state action
in this regard."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
11 Dec 2006 02:41:18 PM |
|
|
Bob wrote:
"Peter Franks" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:EKifh.1002$oS1.275@newsfe20.lga...
Bob wrote:
The right to bear arms exists and shall not be infringed. The
details of
what weapons are legal are the responsibility of the state. The
right is
there.
From federal infringement. That is all the Constitution and the BOR
does,
it
limits the power of what the feds can do. Take the 2nd, the feds can
make no
law infringing on the individual right to bear arms.
The state on the other hand can regulate in this arena, unless the
state
constitution limits state action in this regard.
Can a state also limit the right of
a free press?
Before that can be answered, has the (hypothetical, I presume) state
been delegated the power over the "right of a free press" in its
constitution?
Hypothetically, yes. State law limiting the right
of a free press would not violate the state
constitution.
Then the state constitution is null and void.
The power over rights cannot be delegated.
Let me try again. Do you believe the state can
regulate the press in the same manner you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms?
1) No, presuming that "regulate the press" means 'regulate free speech'.
2) I don't know what you are referring to when you write: "...you suggest
the state can regulate keeping and bearing arms...". I haven't made any
such suggestion, as far as I'm aware of.
Please accept my apology.
I thought it was you who posted "The state
on the other hand can regulate in this arena,
unless the state constitution limits state action
in this regard."
Ok -- no problem.
Regardless, thanks for the civil discussion, always appreciated
regardless of the viewpoint.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
