How The Courts Are Using The Second Amendment Against Us

Federal Observer ^ | 17 April 2002 | Jeff Booth

[45Auto]

The current government of the state of California (among others) considers the 2nd only as a collective right of the state. Never mind that states do nor have rights but merely "authority" whichis supposed to be tempered and constricted by Constitutional mandate. Its clear that the courts are mostly corrupt and totally dishonest when it comes to judging RKBA cases. They are acting in concert with the enmies of freedom inthe legislatures; they are therefore guilty of treason and should be removed from office.

[Argus]

BUMP

[ScreamingFist]

Booga Booga Bump!

[Greeklawyer]

bump

First nine amendments are enumerated individual rights
10th said if not mentioned here then it is left to states
later.

[45Auto]

The most serious aspect of this is that a body of BAD case law now exists covering the 2nd based only on the court's resort to the preamble when deciding gun cases. Its clear that future work by such notable pro-2A lawyers like Stephen Halbrook and Chuck Michael need to really use this argument in future arguments. If not, then it won't be long before the case law load is so great that the preamble will have become the main clause in the 2nd, and ALL courts will rely on that as the sole criterion for decisions. At that point, confiscation will become a real possibility. God help the Republic..

[Honcho]

It's always been my assertion that the Second Amendment has been misread by both sides of the arguement. To me the Second Amendment says this : Because the State must have an Army to be secure, then the State can not interfere with the people's rights to own a gun.

[section9]

Hey fellas, what's the impact of the decision that just came out of the Fifth Circuit? I forget the name, but I understand it comes down heavily on the individual rights side of the equation.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Greeklawyer]

that is a correct reading.
Did not ashcroft in abandoning all the prior gun cases
say this justice department is adopting the individual
rights perspective of the second ammendment.

[asformeandformyhouse]

U.S vs Emerson.

The Wording of the 2nd Amendment

[William Tell]

Honcho said: 'It's always been my assertion that the Second Amendment has been misread by both sides of the arguement. To me the Second Amendment says this : Because the State must have an Army to be secure, then the State can not interfere with the people's rights to own a gun."

Not quite. The word "militia" does not mean army. It means the people acting in their role as protectors of their security. Our Founders distincly refer to "standing armies" as being a threat which will be countered by having an armed populace which will always outnumber them.

When Paul Revere rode to warn Lexington and Concord, he did not shout "The British are coming!". He did not shout "The Militia are coming!". He shouted "The Regulars are coming", referring to the "Regular Army" as opposed to the militia made up of every armed farmer and tradesman.

Our Founders understood exactly what was necessary to insure that the people would be protected from a tyrannical government and it did not consist of insuring them a place in the army which was commanded by that government.

[BlackbirdSST]

Show me any where else in the Constitution the phrase, "shall not be infringed.", is used. Seems some dead white guy's wanted to drive a point home with that one. Blackbird.

[Greeklawyer]

look at the logical conclusion of an armed citizenry.
When huricane andrew devistated miami, there were pictures
of the citizens standing guard armed and protecting their
property and loved ones.
The riots in california had the store owners using guns to push away
looters.

I believe the militia work has been truly bastardized.
The word has the equivalance of citizens bucket brigate.

Just from observation, those who want individual rights eliminated
will go after the guns and will say whatever
to get to their goal.

Look at the guy who wrote that alleged historical book about
gun ownership not being prevalent.
He lied and fabricated according to his piers but no one is
condeming because they agree with his goal.

Common sense dictates the founders were adressing the rights
of the individual.

Take the third ammendment, not to quarter soldiers, is this a conlective right? no,

Is the first amendment a colective right for groupthink? no

The fourth and fifth regarding government acts? no

The constitution was founded by individuals comming together.

The United States did not form itself out of a vacume.
It was not a collective act, it was a collection of acts.

[William Tell]

Greeklawyer said: "I believe the militia work has been truly bastardized."

Yes. It has only been for about a year or so that the liberal media has begun using the word "militia" for any group outside the US. Now it is commonly used to refer to armed bodies committing atrocities against unpopular minorities in places like Indonesia.

This is due, no doubt, to the growing court recognition that the "militia" is distinct from the "army". As this notion becomes more ingrained, it becomes necessary to demonize the "militia" in general and not just named groups in particular states.

Previously, this wasn't necessary because the liberal viewpoint was that the "militia" was the army and independent groups that called themselves "militia" were outlaws.

[pabianice]

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the Second Amendment does not exist -- that there is no right to have firearms. They give gun owners the finger, laugh, and dare us to do something about it. The only hope is a suit in federal court to overturn these bums, but so far, no one with "standing" has been willing to take that step.

[Arthur McGowan]

The message of the Second Amendment is that ultimately it is not the Second Amendment or any other amendment that will protect the people's rights, but guns. The reason courts and legislatures hate the Second Amendment is that the Second Amendment permanently reminds them that--under the right circumstances--the people have the right to shoot to kill judges, legislators, and executives, and the soldiers and police who obey them.

[Gig]

Question: What do you call a government that ignores the basic rights of the people, especially those rights that are enumerated as being "inalienable?"

[Benson_Carter]

do we need the * ? who knows.

bang!

[Joe Brower]

Correct. Individual persons have inalienable "rights". Governments are granted "powers".

As I read somewhere on Guncite.com, the fact that the words "the People" could be construed to mean something different in the 2nd Amendment than they do in the 1st, 4th, 9th and 10th Amendments is a sad tribute to the intellectual dishonesty of our day.

[BlackbirdSST]

The reason courts and legislatures hate the Second Amendment is that the Second Amendment permanently reminds them that--under the right circumstances--the people have the right to shoot to kill judges, legislators, and executives, and the soldiers and police who obey them.

It must suck to be them! Blackbird.