The final test of the 2nd Amendment?

Politics > Politics-USA > The final test of the 2nd Amendment?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 8 of 14

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: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 04:46:38 PM

wrote:

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.

Ok, thanks for clarifying.
Going back to the 9 Circuit opinion, they are trying to assert that the
amendment should be considered in the context of rights. There is
absolutely no such basis -- the amendment is a prohibition against
government, pure and simple. Rights, collective or otherwise, have no
context or application to the amendment.
But, let's examine that opinion a little further:

...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.

Point 1: The opinion makes false inferences of "state militias". The
original text is quite clear, and does not need to be re-interpreted: "A
well regulated Militia".
Point 2: If the amendment doesn't provide any individual right, then
the framers would have /indicated/ that, such as 'the right of the
members of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
But that is NOT what was written. Inferring anything other than an
individual right is patently wrong as the amendment clearly and
expressly designates the /people/.
Point 3: Ownership of anything is not a permission granted by our
benevolent government, it is a fundamental right that is to be secured
and protected by the government. The moral, law-abiding citizen has
every and all rights to keep and bear arms -- the criminal has no such
right as they have forfeited any such right by their actions.

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.

Absolutely and entirely false. Government is expressly and succinctly
delegated explicit powers. Absolutely NO additional authority to act or
power thereof can be exercised by the government.
Federal government has absolutely NO authority to prohibit or restrict
the use and possession of firearms -- there is NO SUCH DELEGATED POWER
OR AUTHORITY. Any existing legislation that promulgates such authority
has been usurped and is constitutionally and legally invalid, regardless
of the findings of the courts.
Utterly false and blatant statements such as this should be reason
enough to entirely rid the 9th circuit of sitting justices and replace
with those that actually read and understand the Constitution and
delegated power.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	08 Feb 2007 08:19:36 AM

On Feb 7, 5:46 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[snip]

Going back to the 9 Circuit opinion, they are trying to assert that the
amendment should be considered in the context of rights. There is
absolutely no such basis -- the amendment is a prohibition against
government, pure and simple. Rights, collective or otherwise, have no
context or application to the amendment.

That's a bit pedantic. It is refered to as the "Bill of Rights"
after all.
It was written to specifically "protect" certain rights from the
"powers"
that were "granted" to the federal government.

But, let's examine that opinion a little further:

Point 1: The opinion makes false inferences of "state militias". The
original text is quite clear, and does not need to be re-interpreted: "A
well regulated Militia".

Again, a level of pedantry not probably appropriate for the document
at
hand. You are making distinctions between "state militias" and
militias
in general that were almost assuredly not considered when authoring
the document. The amendment clearly makes plain that it was
protection of the existence of militias that was being protected by
the
amendment. The argument is always the degree beyond militias
the amendment was intended to address.

Point 2: If the amendment doesn't provide any individual right, then
the framers would have /indicated/ that, such as 'the right of the
members of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
But that is NOT what was written. Inferring anything other than an
individual right is patently wrong as the amendment clearly and
expressly designates the /people/.

You can turn this argument on its head however. If you want
to start asserting what the authors would have written, you can
make the claim that if they had intended to write a blanket
clause against interference with private ownership, the militia
clause would never have been added. As I've said before,
a plain reading of the amendment seems to indicate that it
was written to prevent federal interference in the state
militias. I call it the "Lexington and Concord Memorial Amendment".
What also is plain however is that there was some right
which the authors presumed existed. "The right" can't
be much more plain. The collective rights approach recognizes
that the feds can't interfere in militias. One can argue whether
that is state militias or any militia. What collective rights
folks tend to over look is that one shouldn't look upon
the 2nd as LIMITING the RKBA. Amendments didn't
"limit" our rights, they limited the governments powers.
That the government is limited in their ability to interfere with
militias, doesn't mean they are unlimited in any other sense.

Point 3: Ownership of anything is not a permission granted by our
benevolent government, it is a fundamental right that is to be secured
and protected by the government. The moral, law-abiding citizen has
every and all rights to keep and bear arms -- the criminal has no such
right as they have forfeited any such right by their actions.

This is several points actually. The government is empowered
to regulate commerce. Also, with "due process of law" they have
even greater powers. You have a right to be secure in your
property. It isn't clear you have a right to obtain any form of
property you wish. The RKBA exists, and I maintain it was
presumed by the authors. However, exactly what the right
entails has never really been codified.

Absolutely and entirely false. Government is expressly and succinctly
delegated explicit powers. Absolutely NO additional authority to act or
power thereof can be exercised by the government.

And they generally promulgate weapons laws under the guise of
their power to regulate commerce. That is an explicit power they
were granted.

Federal government has absolutely NO authority to prohibit or restrict
the use and possession of firearms -- there is NO SUCH DELEGATED POWER
OR AUTHORITY. Any existing legislation that promulgates such authority
has been usurped and is constitutionally and legally invalid, regardless
of the findings of the courts.

Your argument is now becoming circular. "They can't because I
say so. I say so because they can't". They have an authority to
regulate commerce. It has been determined by constitutional
processes that their regulations are within their authority. Until
some of those constitutional processes come to another
decision, they are operating within their authority.
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	08 Feb 2007 10:37:11 AM

wrote:

On Feb 7, 5:46 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[snip]

That's a bit pedantic. It is refered to as the "Bill of Rights"
after all.

Honestly, I'm not interested in what it is colloquially called, however
wrong that terminology is. It is clearly a "Bill of Protections".
For the record, I do NOT refer to the amendments as the "Bill of
Rights", and advocate others do the same.

It was written to specifically "protect" certain rights from the
"powers"
that were "granted" to the federal government.

It was written "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [governmental]
powers". Not pedantic, /precise/.
One of the greatest problems around the understanding of these plain and
simple documents is successive reinterpretation. Let's stick to the
original terminology, when possible.

But, let's examine that opinion a little further:

Point 1: The opinion makes false inferences of "state militias". The
original text is quite clear, and does not need to be re-interpreted: "A
well regulated Militia".

Not pedantic, /precise/.
Again, one of the greatest problems around the understanding of these
plain and simple documents is successive reinterpretation. Let's stick
to the original terminology, when possible. This is ESPECIALLY
important for the federal courts.
The 9th Circuit opinion has effectively changed the meaning of the
amendment by inserting its own terminology. The original text states a
"well regulated Militia", and that terminology is sufficient for the 9th
Circuit.

Amendment II is strictly an unnecessary amendment. The Federal
government has not been delegated the power or authority to 'interfere'
with the militia. The body of the Constitution is /very/ clear as to
what federal powers are delegated with respect to the militia.
Amendment II stands as a declaration to prevent misconstruction of
governmental powers, on the face being unnecessary if said powers
weren't misconstrued.

I call it the "Lexington and Concord Memorial Amendment".
What also is plain however is that there was some right
which the authors presumed existed. "The right" can't
be much more plain. The collective rights approach recognizes
that the feds can't interfere in militias.

The Feds can't interfere in militia, regardless of Amendment II. If you
believe otherwise, please indicate where that power is granted to the
Federal government.

One can argue whether
that is state militias or any militia. What collective rights
folks tend to over look is that one shouldn't look upon
the 2nd as LIMITING the RKBA. Amendments didn't
"limit" our rights, they limited the governments powers.
That the government is limited in their ability to interfere with
militias, doesn't mean they are unlimited in any other sense.

State militias are most definitely unlimited from the Federal
perspective. The extent of the federally delegated power is:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
"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;"

This is several points actually. The government is empowered
to regulate commerce.

No, the government is NOT empowered to regulate commerce.
The Federal government has been delegated the authority to "To regulate
Commerce ... among the several States". I suggest that you study and
understand what that phrase means, in its original context.

Also, with "due process of law" they have
even greater powers.

Please point out where this "due process of law" power has been
delegated to the Federal government.

You have a right to be secure in your
property. It isn't clear you have a right to obtain any form of
property you wish.

On the contrary, if it isn't clear from the context of the Constitution,
then it is CRYSTAL clear. There is no restriction.

The RKBA exists, and I maintain it was
presumed by the authors. However, exactly what the right
entails has never really been codified.

Nor should it. We don't look to the Constitution to tell us what rights
we have; we created the Constitution to secure and protect our rights,
whatever they may be.
Codifying rights is reprehensible -- it (attempts) to make rights
subordinate to the law and this is entirely wrong! The law is
subordinate to rights!

Absolutely and entirely false. Government is expressly and succinctly
delegated explicit powers. Absolutely NO additional authority to act or
power thereof can be exercised by the government.

And they generally promulgate weapons laws under the guise of
their power to regulate commerce. That is an explicit power they
were granted.

No, it is an usurped power they have abused.
I suggest that you do some serious investigation into the so-called
Commerce Clause.
This clause has been abused to a disgusting degree and should be
repealed /immediately/.

Yes, and I abide by that illegitimate legislation and fallacious
judicial interpretation.
That is why the Commerce Clause /must/ be repealed. The sense of
balance and justice originally envisioned is long dead with respect to
this so-called 'power' -- time to clean house, and it starts there.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	08 Feb 2007 12:53:48 PM

On Feb 8, 11:37 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

On Feb 7, 5:46 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
[snip]

That's a bit pedantic. It is refered to as the "Bill of Rights"
after all.

Honestly, I'm not interested in what it is colloquially called, however
wrong that terminology is. It is clearly a "Bill of Protections".

For the record, I do NOT refer to the amendments as the "Bill of
Rights", and advocate others do the same.

It was written to specifically "protect" certain rights from the
"powers"
that were "granted" to the federal government.

It was written "to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [governmental]
powers". Not pedantic, /precise/.

One of the greatest problems around the understanding of these plain and
simple documents is successive reinterpretation. Let's stick to the
original terminology, when possible.

But, let's examine that opinion a little further:

Point 1: The opinion makes false inferences of "state militias". The
original text is quite clear, and does not need to be re-interpreted: "A
well regulated Militia".

Not pedantic, /precise/.

Again, one of the greatest problems around the understanding of these
plain and simple documents is successive reinterpretation. Let's stick
to the original terminology, when possible. This is ESPECIALLY
important for the federal courts.

The 9th Circuit opinion has effectively changed the meaning of the
amendment by inserting its own terminology. The original text states a
"well regulated Militia", and that terminology is sufficient for the 9th
Circuit.

Amendment II is strictly an unnecessary amendment.

And argument which was made as the basis of not passing
the BoR at all. I think we are all glad they did. ;In hindsight it
is apparent they probably did not pass enough.

The Federal
government has not been delegated the power or authority to 'interfere'
with the militia. The body of the Constitution is /very/ clear as to
what federal powers are delegated with respect to the militia.

And yet the authors felt it was necessary to be clear on this
point.

Amendment II stands as a declaration to prevent misconstruction of
governmental powers, on the face being unnecessary if said powers
weren't misconstrued.

The Feds can't interfere in militia, regardless of Amendment II. If you
believe otherwise, please indicate where that power is granted to the
Federal government.

You're using circular arguments again. It is a given that no
rights can be usurped by the feds even when exercising their
powers. The entire point of the BoR was to specify specific
rights which it was felt some clarification was required. In this
case they were making it clear a specific form of interference
was not allowed.
[snip]

This is several points actually. The government is empowered
to regulate commerce.

No, the government is NOT empowered to regulate commerce.

The Federal government has been delegated the authority to "To regulate
Commerce ... among the several States". I suggest that you study and
understand what that phrase means, in its original context.

I do, I'm just not being pedantic. The government has been
delegated
this authority and it has turned out (much to the surprise of the
authors I'm sure) that this is a fairly broad power.

Also, with "due process of law" they have
even greater powers.

Please point out where this "due process of law" power has been
delegated to the Federal government.

You want me to point out where the phrase "without due process
of law" is in the constitution?

You have a right to be secure in your
property. It isn't clear you have a right to obtain any form of
property you wish.

On the contrary, if it isn't clear from the context of the Constitution,
then it is CRYSTAL clear. There is no restriction.

Don't make the mistake of believing that anything that you can
think of is somehow a "right". The authors believed we had rights.
They delegated powers to the federal government. Those powers
can be used. It is only when those powers interfere with a right
that they become limited. If they have the power, you must have
a right which limits that power. It isn't clear that you have
a right to declare anything and everything "property".

The RKBA exists, and I maintain it was
presumed by the authors. However, exactly what the right
entails has never really been codified.

Nor should it. We don't look to the Constitution to tell us what rights
we have; we created the Constitution to secure and protect our rights,
whatever they may be.

None the less the authors of the BoR felt it necessary to express
some of them. I think at this point we would all benefit if we
expressed something with respect to the RKBA.

Codifying rights is reprehensible -- it (attempts) to make rights
subordinate to the law and this is entirely wrong! The law is
subordinate to rights!

Which is why some felt the BoR was unnecessary and in
fact risky. Some felt that by protecting some rights specifically,
"some darn fool" would think that they were all the rights we had.
The BoR specifically tries to dispell this notion, rarely
successfully.

Absolutely and entirely false. Government is expressly and succinctly
delegated explicit powers. Absolutely NO additional authority to act or
power thereof can be exercised by the government.

And they generally promulgate weapons laws under the guise of
their power to regulate commerce. That is an explicit power they
were granted.

No, it is an usurped power they have abused.

They have an authority to regulate some commerce. I don't think
you'd find anyone to dispute that the power has been exercised vastly
beyond what was envisioned. None the less, even within a more
reasonable definition of the power, many of the laws could be
applied, albeit only on actual interstate commerce.

I suggest that you do some serious investigation into the so-called
Commerce Clause.

Oh, I'm fairly familiar with Wheat and the "decision that saved
the
nine".

This clause has been abused to a disgusting degree and should be
repealed /immediately/.

I've argued this issue before. It should have been but now,
when you
realize the amount of law which is based upon it, changing it would
have
an overwhelming effect on our federal system. Deconstruction of this
would be huge. I'd personally recommend that a few specific cases
be outlined and their power over the regulation of that commerce be
limited or eliminated.

Yes, and I abide by that illegitimate legislation and fallacious
judicial interpretation.

That is why the Commerce Clause /must/ be repealed. The sense of
balance and justice originally envisioned is long dead with respect to
this so-called 'power' -- time to clean house, and it starts there.-

I actually agree somewhat. We probably wouldn't agree on how
to change it though. Remove the power they used to operate the
FDA, OSHA, and a few of the other alphabet soups, and it
creates a nightmare. The flip side is I'd probably have little
problem watching the BATF be dismantled.
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	08 Feb 2007 05:01:37 PM

wrote:

Amendment II is strictly an unnecessary amendment.

And argument which was made as the basis of not passing
the BoR at all. I think we are all glad they did. ;In hindsight it
is apparent they probably did not pass enough.

Yes, and I'm of the persuasion that the amendments should NOT have been
proposed or passed.

The Federal government has been delegated the authority to "To regulate
Commerce ... among the several States". I suggest that you study and
understand what that phrase means, in its original context.

I do, I'm just not being pedantic. The government has been
delegated
this authority and it has turned out (much to the surprise of the
authors I'm sure) that this is a fairly broad power.

On the contrary, this was NOT intended to be a broad power, but through
successive reinterpretation and abuse, that is what it has turned into.
Let us recall Madison: "The powers delegated by the proposed
Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined."

Also, with "due process of law" they have
even greater powers.

Please point out where this "due process of law" power has been
delegated to the Federal government.

You want me to point out where the phrase "without due process
of law" is in the constitution?

No, point out the federal power(s) granted through "due process of law".
I'm trying to get some clarity on your "Also, with 'due process of
law' they have even greater powers" statement.

You have a right to be secure in your
property. It isn't clear you have a right to obtain any form of
property you wish.

On the contrary, if it isn't clear from the context of the Constitution,
then it is CRYSTAL clear. There is no restriction.

That is where I disagree. The powers are defined and intrinsically
limited, regardless of whether or not they interfere w/ a right.

If they have the power, you must have
a right which limits that power. It isn't clear that you have
a right to declare anything and everything "property".

If I can possess it, independent of government, it is property.

Codifying rights is reprehensible -- it (attempts) to make rights
subordinate to the law and this is entirely wrong! The law is
subordinate to rights!

Which is why I think the first 10 amendments have done more harm than good.

Absolutely and entirely false. Government is expressly and succinctly
delegated explicit powers. Absolutely NO additional authority to act or
power thereof can be exercised by the government.

And they generally promulgate weapons laws under the guise of
their power to regulate commerce. That is an explicit power they
were granted.

No, it is an usurped power they have abused.

They have an authority to regulate some commerce. I don't think
you'd find anyone to dispute that the power has been exercised vastly
beyond what was envisioned.

Then the exercise of that power is not constitutionally sound, and
therefore, usurped.
There is only ONE way to expand the power of government; exercising
beyond what was envisioned is NOT it.

I suggest that you do some serious investigation into the so-called
Commerce Clause.

Oh, I'm fairly familiar with Wheat and the "decision that saved
the
nine".

Are you speaking of Wickard v. Filburn? If not, I'm not following. If
so, that ruling was pure garbage and imo, the beginning of the end.

This clause has been abused to a disgusting degree and should be
repealed /immediately/.

Oh, it would be catastrophic in net effect, to be sure. But that
doesn't dissuade me in the least. I view this as a controlled change
(drastic that it may be), but better than the alternative of eventual
uncontrolled destruction.
In my defense, repealing the commerce clause wouldn't immediately
invalidate anything -- the normal course of constitutional review and
adjudication would still apply, and it could continue to move along at
its glacial pace.
Regardless, thanks for the level-headed discussion on the subjects. I
always appreciate a frank and honest discussion as opposed to the
degenerate tripe that infects some of these forums.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	12 Feb 2007 07:52:19 AM

On Feb 8, 6:01 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

[snip]

They delegated powers to the federal government. Those powers
can be used. It is only when those powers interfere with a right
that they become limited.

That is where I disagree. The powers are defined and intrinsically
limited, regardless of whether or not they interfere w/ a right.

[snip]
This is a fundamental point. I'd be curious to know where one
finds the limits of a power, other than rights. If I have the power
to coin money, what limits upon that power exist in the constitution
other than an interference with rights?
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	12 Feb 2007 04:42:27 PM

wrote:

On Feb 8, 6:01 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

[snip]

They delegated powers to the federal government. Those powers
can be used. It is only when those powers interfere with a right
that they become limited.

That is where I disagree. The powers are defined and intrinsically
limited, regardless of whether or not they interfere w/ a right.

[snip]

This is a fundamental point. I'd be curious to know where one
finds the limits of a power, other than rights. If I have the power
to coin money, what limits upon that power exist in the constitution
other than an interference with rights?

Ok, if you have the power to coin money (speaking in terms of explicit
delegated powers), that doesn't imply that you have the power to control
the value of said money, even though changing the value may not affect
rights.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 06:58:33 AM

On Feb 12, 5:42 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

On Feb 8, 6:01 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

[snip]

They delegated powers to the federal government. Those powers
can be used. It is only when those powers interfere with a right
that they become limited.

That is where I disagree. The powers are defined and intrinsically
limited, regardless of whether or not they interfere w/ a right.

[snip]

This is a fundamental point. I'd be curious to know where one
finds the limits of a power, other than rights. If I have the power
to coin money, what limits upon that power exist in the constitution
other than an interference with rights?

It would be impossible to coin money and not affect the value.
The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs. There isn't even
a "constant" value for money. It varies with both time and
geographic location. And what in the constitution indicates that
the power to coin money is limited by the requirement that the
government may not control the value of the produced coin?
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 09:12:11 AM

wrote:

They delegated powers to the federal government. Those powers
can be used. It is only when those powers interfere with a right
that they become limited.

That is where I disagree. The powers are defined and intrinsically
limited, regardless of whether or not they interfere w/ a right.

[snip]

It would be impossible to coin money and not affect the value.

Sure you can. Replace what is lost or worn -- the value of money would
remain /unchanged/ from your efforts.

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?
If yes, then by what authority?
If no, then my point has been made.
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 09:26:14 AM

On Feb 13, 10:12 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

[snip]

It would be impossible to coin money and not affect the value.

Sure you can. Replace what is lost or worn -- the value of money would
remain /unchanged/ from your efforts.

How about when you first start? What is the total value that is
"correct"? Does that change over time? How fast can one
react to the changing markets? The value of coin will vary with
time, and location.

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?

If yes, then by what authority?

If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 10:07:35 AM

wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?

If yes, then by what authority?

If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 10:32:13 AM

On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?

If yes, then by what authority?

If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?

The constitution doesn't limit the power to coin money to
"the mint". It is a power of the US government.
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 01:53:59 PM

wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?

If yes, then by what authority?

If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?

The constitution doesn't limit the power to coin money to
"the mint". It is a power of the US government.

Is Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 04:15:24 PM

On Feb 13, 2:53 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?

If yes, then by what authority?

If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?

The constitution doesn't limit the power to coin money to
"the mint". It is a power of the US government.

Is Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous

Counterfitting of money? If you meant "controlling the value
thereof" , to some extent yes since their "power" to do so is
limited by market realities. Does allow them to try.
.

User: "Magus"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 12:52:52 PM

wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?
If yes, then by what authority?
If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?

The constitution doesn't limit the power to coin money to
"the mint". It is a power of the US government.

Does the US government coin money or does it borrow money from the
Federal Reserve (which is in no way an agency of the government of the USA)?
.

User: ""
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	13 Feb 2007 12:54:35 PM

On Feb 13, 1:52 pm, Magus <n...@noway.net> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

On Feb 13, 11:07 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:

oconn...@slr.orl.lmco.com wrote:

The "money supply" is how we do exactly that. Over print and its
value decreases. Restrict, and the value climbs.

Does the US Mint do that by its own intrinsic power?
If yes, then by what authority?
If no, then my point has been made

The US government does it by its own intrinsic power.

So, Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 is superfluous?

The constitution doesn't limit the power to coin money to
"the mint". It is a power of the US government.

Does the US government coin money or does it borrow money from the
Federal Reserve (which is in no way an agency of the government of the USA)?

I'm gonna screw up the particulars, but the Feds print the money,
the Federal
Reserve contols the money supply based upon directions of the
congress.
(For example, the fed, on directions of the government, put more cash
into circulation just before Y2K in anticipation of a larger demand
for
cash reserves).
.

User: "The Lone Weasel"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 09:07:33 AM

Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:

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.

What about Amendment X? This amendment grants powers, not rights. Sounds
like it's about powers of governments, state and municipal governments, not
individuals.
But if you can find a USSC case in whith the Tenth Amendment was found to
protect grant recognize or reserve a power to an individual, you can post
it right here, Goober.

The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --

Why?

and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.

[begin text]
The United States Constitution
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.
[end text]
"Provide for the common defense" sounds like a collective right to me...
POINT PROVEN!
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 10:14:21 AM

The Lone Weasel wrote:

The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not the
granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.

What about Amendment X? This amendment grants powers, not rights.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
Point out where a power is granted.

Sounds
like it's about powers of governments, state and municipal governments, not
individuals.

"OR TO THE PEOPLE."

But if you can find a USSC case in whith the Tenth Amendment was found to
protect grant recognize or reserve a power to an individual, you can post
it right here...

Doubt there is one, which explicitly proves my point -- the first 10
amendments are about restrictions on government, just like the preamble
states.
.

User: "The Lone Weasel"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 11:32:25 AM

Peter Franks <none@none.com> said:

The Lone Weasel wrote:

The first 10 Amendments are about explicit limits on GOVERNMENT, not
the granting or delegation of rights, collective or otherwise.

What about Amendment X? This amendment grants powers, not rights.

[begin excerpt]
Mr. GEORGE MASON still thought that there ought to be some
express declaration in the Constitution, asserting that
rights not given to the general government were retained by
the states. He apprehended that, unless this was done, many
valuable and important rights would be concluded to be given
up by implication. All governments were drawn from the
people, though many were perverted to their oppression. The
government of Virginia, he remarked, was drawn from the
people; yet there were certain great and important rights,
which the people, by their bill of rights, declared to be
paramount to the power of the legislature. He asked, Why
should it not be so in this Constitution? Was it because we
were more substantially represented in it than in the state
government? If, in the state government, where the people
were substantially and fully represented, it was necessary
that the great rights of human nature should {445} be secure
from the encroachments of the legislature, he asked if it
was not more necessary in this government, where they were
but inadequately represented? He declared that artful
sophistry and evasions could not satisfy him. He could see
no clear distinction between rights relinquished by a
positive grant, and lost by implication. Unless there were a
bill of rights, implication might swallow up all our rights.
Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788.
[end excerpt]

Sounds
like it's about powers of governments, state and municipal governments,
not individuals.

"OR TO THE PEOPLE."

Municipalities. As you know, Goober, individuals have rights, governments
have powers. That's been repeated endlessly by gunloons for years. I expect
you to stand by it.
Besides, individuals are covered under the Ninth Amendment. Why in hell
would they be covered twice in successive amendments ratified together?
You don't know because it isn't so.
The people as governments, states and municipalities, have reserved powers.
Not individuals.

But if you can find a USSC case in whith the Tenth Amendment was found
to protect grant recognize or reserve a power to an individual, you can
post it right here...

Doubt there is one,

POINT PROVEN!
--
Yours truly,
The Lone Weasel
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 12:24:04 PM

The Lone Weasel wrote:

Sounds
like it's about powers of governments, state and municipal governments,
not individuals.

"OR TO THE PEOPLE."

Municipalities.

You know, when you make up meanings to words to suit your fancy, I guess
anything can mean anything.
If "the people" refers to municipalities, why didn't the founders WRITE
municipalities?

Besides, individuals are covered under the Ninth Amendment. Why in hell
would they be covered twice in successive amendments ratified together?

That is an easy one to answer, provided that you understand the
difference between the word RIGHTS and POWERS. If not, confusion is
guaranteed.

The people as governments, states and municipalities, have reserved powers.
Not individuals.

Try again.
The people have the ultimate power, not the government: the jury verdict.
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	07 Feb 2007 10:16:03 AM

The Lone Weasel wrote:

The so-called "collective rights model" is pure and utter nonsense --

and you need to look NO FURTHER than the preamble to understand that.

[begin text]

The United States Constitution

Preamble

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more
perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the
general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America.

[end text]

"Provide for the common defense" sounds like a collective right to me...

What dictionary are you using that defines "provide" as "collective right"?
.

User: "Rich Travsky"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	09 Feb 2007 10:54:38 PM

Peter Franks wrote:

Rich Travsky wrote:

Using the militia to put down insurrections is not a restriction on
government. The Congress calling forth the militia is not a restriction on
government. Regulating the militia is not a restriction on government.
Organizing, arming, and disciplinging the militia is not a restriction on
government. You need look NO FURTHER than the Constitution to understand
that the militia is a tool of the government.
.

User: "RD The Sandman"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	04 Feb 2007 04:00:44 PM

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com:

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that
so hard to
understand?

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

Individually or collectively?

Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.

Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm

I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?

Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?

heh heh heh

<snipped non-answer>

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

Answer pasted back in

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.

And the Emerson case in the 5th district state the opposite.....thus
putting into motion a possible USSC hearing to settle the differences
between the two circuits.
--
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?	06 Feb 2007 09:05:58 PM

"RD (The Sandman)" wrote:

Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in
news:45C64D9D.71516448@hotmMOVEail.com:

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that
so hard to
understand?

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

Individually or collectively?

Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.

Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm

I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?

Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?

heh heh heh

<snipped non-answer>

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

And the Emerson case in the 5th district state the opposite.....thus
putting into motion a possible USSC hearing to settle the differences
between the two circuits.

Get back to us when that happens, hear?
RT
.

User: "Peter Franks"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	04 Feb 2007 04:52:53 PM

Rich Travsky wrote:

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45C01367.F8B3B6CC@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45BC291F.8E987928@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B6D2D6.903655EE@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard
to
understand?

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

Individually or collectively?

Answer for both if you believe the answers
are different.

Enjoy: http://www.ux1.eiu.edu/~cfib/courses/silveira.htm

I'll ask again. Do you believe that the second
amendment grants the right to keep and bear
arms?

Why is this such a difficult question for you
to answer in a straightforward manner?

heh heh heh

<snipped non-answer>

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

Answer pasted back in

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: "Bama Brian"
Title: Re: The final test of the 2nd Amendment?	21 Jan 2007 04:01:49 PM

Bob wrote:

"Rich Travsky" <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote in message
news:45B2E7F1.A685FAC7@hotmMOVEail.com...

Bob wrote:

"As determined by the need for a militia." - why is that so hard to
understand?

Do you believe that the second amendment
grants the right to keep and bear arms?

The Constitution does not grant rights anywhere in it; instead it
PROTECT