| 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: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 02:49:56 PM |
|
|
"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 14, 10:46 am, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 13, 11:09 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
[snip]
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment
right to "bear arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain
effective state militias, but does not provide any type of
individual right to own or possess weapons.
[snip]
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and
its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81
F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model
which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment.
[snip]
So, basically, they only ruled upon the 2nd amendment and didn't
decide
whether, outside of the 2nd amendment, there was a RKBA. Since
the 2nd implicitly acknowledges that such a right already exists, my
basic point still stands. Apart from the 2nd, there is a RKBA of
some sort, and that the expression in the 2nd "the right" in the
second presumes that right and attempts to protect it in a narrow
circumstance which your cite addresses.
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That
has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some how
limits any other individual rights.
The right of the people, not of the person.
Like, "The People of Gunloon County," never "The Gunloon Who Lives In This
County".
Point proven.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 10:01:50 AM |
|
|
On Feb 14, 3:49 pm, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
[snip]
And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some how
limits any other individual rights.
The right of the people, not of the person.
Like, "The People of Gunloon County," never "The Gunloon Who Lives In This
County".
[snip]
You're still discussing the 2nd. The point is that there are
rights outside
of the 2nd and it should not be seen as somehow limiting those rights.
The second was merely a restriction on the federal government, not a
limitation
on the people.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 10:12:48 AM |
|
|
"oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 14, 3:49 pm, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
[snip]
And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some how
limits any other individual rights.
The right of the people, not of the person.
Like, "The People of Gunloon County," never "The Gunloon Who Lives In
This
County".
[snip]
You're still discussing the 2nd.
The second what?
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 10:35:22 AM |
|
|
On Feb 15, 11:12 am, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 14, 3:49 pm, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
[snip]
And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some how
limits any other individual rights.
The right of the people, not of the person.
Like, "The People of Gunloon County," never "The Gunloon Who Lives In
This
County".
[snip]
You're still discussing the 2nd.
The second what?
Amendment, but you knew that, so what's your point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 04:16:12 PM |
|
|
<oconnell@slr.orl.lmco.com> wrote in message
news:1171557322.883592.279050@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 15, 11:12 am, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
On Feb 14, 3:49 pm, The Lone Weasel <lonewea...@gmail.com> wrote:
"oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com" <oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com> said:
[snip]
And the 2nd make specific reference to "the right". It is
a mistake to presume that the 2nd, or really any, amendment some how
limits any other individual rights.
The right of the people, not of the person.
Like, "The People of Gunloon County," never "The Gunloon Who Lives In
This
County".
[snip]
You're still discussing the 2nd.
The second what?
Amendment, but you knew that, so what's your point?
That he's a stupid ***** that can't follow a discussion for more than an
hour?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 10:02:49 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That has
nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 12:09:22 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That
has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for self-defense.
Texas.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Texas State Constitution previously cited dozens of times, Winkie.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 01:23:35 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That
has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for self-defense.
Texas.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Texas State Constitution previously cited dozens of times, Winkie.
And it has been previously shown that it didn't grant a right.
Your argument remains unsubstantiated.
- end
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 02:53:38 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense. That
has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for self-defense.
Texas.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Texas State Constitution previously cited dozens of times, Winkie.
And it has been previously shown that it didn't grant a right.
You don't remember it, do you Goober? Texas Constitution, Article I,
Section 23.
POINT PROVEN!
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 10:55:08 AM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
--
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: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 01:22:16 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 03:02:06 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
[end excerpt]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 04:16:30 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
What part of the Constitution /grants/ a right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 04:43:19 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
What part of the Constitution /grants/ a right?
Most of it.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 05:18:35 PM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
What part of the Constitution /grants/ a right?
Most of it.
That is not an answer to the question posed. Your argument is
unfounded, and has been ignored.
- end
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 10:11:47 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing
in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations
to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
What part of the Constitution /grants/ a right?
Most of it.
That is not an answer to the question posed. Your argument is
unfounded, and has been ignored.
Constitutions generally grant rights, fool.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 10:11:05 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations
to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
In this context it may not, Goober.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 10:26:03 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
"Any" may include zero.
In this context it may not, Goober.
Great answer! Now if you could just /substantiate/ it...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 10:51:43 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this
section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to
organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
[end excerpt]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
More gobbledygook from the gibbering fat gibbon.
FOAD, Jabba the gibberer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 11:50:02 AM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in
this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
[end excerpt]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
More gobbledygook from the gibbering fat gibbon.
More proof from the United States Supreme Court that Brian "Bama Brian"
Claypool is just another dirt ignorant gunloon from Mobile, Alabama.
I have proof for my claims. Gunloons can't prove anything they claim to
believe.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Feb 2007 11:13:36 AM |
|
|
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in
this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
[end excerpt]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
More gobbledygook from the gibbering fat gibbon.
More proof from the United States Supreme Court that Brian "Bama Brian"
Claypool is just another dirt ignorant gunloon from Mobile, Alabama.
I have proof for my claims. Gunloons can't prove anything they claim to
believe.
The only thing you have for your claims is "poof". You've been
discredited in this ng so often that I'm surprised HCI/VPC allows you to
post.
Jeers to the gibbering greasy gibbon, Jabba the Wrong.
ps: You still don't know where I live!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Lone Weasel" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
16 Feb 2007 12:02:26 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com> said:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing
in
this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
That's because you're an illiterate goober.
[begin excerpt]
The postponement of the right to judicial inquiry until after the
remedy by appeal to the Secretary has been exhausted is justified
by analogy to the rule which restrains this court from
interfering with the orderly administration of criminal law in
the courts of a state until after a final determination by the
[194 U.S. 161, 174] highest court of that state. But there is
this essential difference: To the highest court of a state a writ
of error runs from this court, and there is, therefore, propriety
in waiting until the final decision of the courts of the states,
the presumption being always that they will uphold the
Constitution of the United States, and enforce any rights granted
by it.
U S v. SING TUCK, 194 U.S. 161 (1904)
[end excerpt]
POINT PROVEN!
Laugh laugh laugh laugh laugh.
More gobbledygook from the gibbering fat gibbon.
More proof from the United States Supreme Court that Brian "Bama Brian"
Claypool is just another dirt ignorant gunloon from Mobile, Alabama.
I have proof for my claims. Gunloons can't prove anything they claim to
believe.
The only thing you have for your claims is "poof".
You never proved anything yet, Brian "Bama Brian" Claypool of Mobile,
Alabama.
I provide support for my claims with authoritative sources like the US
Supreme Court. You don't have sources for your *****, just rumors,
vague hunches and wildly inaccurate guesswork.
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 01:35:43 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:IjJAh.10430$OY.7498@newsfe20.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:KoGAh.106802$5q6.41100@newsfe17.lga:
The Lone Weasel wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in
this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
I didn't claim it was. I specifically said "Arizona protects that right
explicitely." Many state constitutions don't even do that.
--
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: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 04:14:49 PM |
|
|
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in
this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
I didn't claim it was. I specifically said "Arizona protects that right
explicitely."
Ok, sure, I agree and understand that a lot of states do /protect/ a
right, but I'd asked "Please cite one state constitution that grants an
rkba...".
I'm not aware of a state constitution that, in so many words, states:
'the citizens of <state name here> are hereby granted the right to keep
and bear arms...'.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RD The Sandman" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
15 Feb 2007 02:17:32 PM |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:uRLAh.26185$uC5.17983@newsfe19.lga:
RD (The Sandman) wrote:
Most states grant some kind of individual rkba for self defense.
That has nothing to do with the Second Amendment to the US
Constitution.
Please cite one state constitution that grants an rkba for
self-defense.
I'm looking for an explicit reference.
Arizona protects that right explicitely.
Article 2 Section 26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in
defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing
in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or
corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
I see no right that is /granted/.
I didn't claim it was. I specifically said "Arizona protects that
right explicitely."
Ok, sure, I agree and understand that a lot of states do /protect/ a
right, but I'd asked "Please cite one state constitution that grants
an rkba...".
I'm not aware of a state constitution that, in so many words, states:
'the citizens of <state name here> are hereby granted the right to
keep and bear arms...'.
Fair enough. ;)
--
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: "Magus" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
14 Feb 2007 08:00:10 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 13, 11:09 pm, Rich Travsky <traRvE...@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
[snip]
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons.
[snip]
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
[snip]
So, basically, they only ruled upon the 2nd amendment and didn't
decide
whether, outside of the 2nd amendment, there was a RKBA. Since
the 2nd implicitly acknowledges that such a right already exists, my
basic point still stands. Apart from the 2nd, there is a RKBA of
some sort, and that the expression in the 2nd "the right" in the
second presumes that right and attempts to protect it in a narrow
circumstance which your cite addresses.
I thought you were asking for HIS opinion and all he's done is
copy/paste someone else's opinion....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 12:12:40 AM |
|
|
Rich Travsky wrote:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
Compare that affirmation with the Preamble to the Amendments,
specifically clause 2:
"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 ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution."
The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not the
granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.
The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --
and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 07:18:03 AM |
|
|
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
Compare that affirmation with the Preamble to the Amendments,
specifically clause 2:
"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 ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution."
The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not the
granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.
The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --
and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.- Hide
I'm having trouble coming to that conclusion from the preamble.
The 2nd is
a specific limit on federal government power. How that precludes a
collective
rights model at the state level is not obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 08:53:39 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
Compare that affirmation with the Preamble to the Amendments,
specifically clause 2:
"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 ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution."
The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not the
granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.
The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --
and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.- Hide
I'm having trouble coming to that conclusion from the preamble.
The 2nd is
a specific limit on federal government power. How that precludes a
collective
rights model at the state level is not obvious.
I'm not entirely clear what your point is.
I'll clarify one point: The so-called "collective rights model" /as it
applies to Amendment II/ is pure and utter nonsense.
If that is not what you are talking about, please clarify your
point/position.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment? |
07 Feb 2007 12:56:17 PM |
|
|
On Feb 7, 9:53 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:12 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Rich Travsky wrote:
http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm
...
...the "collective rights" model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to "bear
arms" guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but
does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under
this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full
authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of
firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as
due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second
Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal [*13] courts, the collective rights
model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates.
After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we
reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is
this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second
Amendment.
...
Compare that affirmation with the Preamble to the Amendments,
specifically clause 2:
"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 ensure the beneficent
ends of its institution."
The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not the
granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.
The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --
and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.- Hide
I'm having trouble coming to that conclusion from the preamble. The 2nd is
a specific limit on federal government power. How that precludes a collective
rights model at the state level is not obvious.
I'm not entirely clear what your point is.
You claim that because the preamble specifically mentions that the
amendments, including the 2nd, was a restriction on federal
government
power, that the collective rights model was "pure and utter nonsense".
Regardless of how one comes to such a determination, it would seem
difficult to use the preamble to do so.
I'll clarify one point: The so-called "collective rights model" /as it
applies to Amendment II/ is pure and utter nonsense.
That was clear. What was not was how you determined that by
reading the preamble.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
