Rewrite the Second Amendment?

Magic City Morning Star ^ | Jun 2, 2004 | Richard D. Skidmore

[robertpaulsen]

Are they correct in their interpretation of the second amendment? I don't know. I would think not, but it's a moot point.

The California legislature can write any gun law they please since the citizen's RKBA is not protected by the California Constitution.

[Dead Corpse]

There is also this one:
Art 4
Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As it is an "enumerated Right", this Right should extend via this mechanism, and the others, to ALL US citizens who have not had their Rights removed via due process in a criminal proceeding.

Unless of course, our government considers us all "criminals"... in which case the government itself would need to be disabused of that notion.

[muawiyah]

Technically, yes, they use "magical thinking". They also show every sign of most of their members having the kind of brain damage you get from snorting cocaine too often.

[Dead Corpse]

You are still a gun grabber. And very wrong as well.

[RKV]

Color me a 2nd Amendment absolutist, in fact, I am pretty much of an absolutist about the whole %&^$ Constitution. Not that the judges and legislators have ever let the actual words/meaning of the document stop them from doing what they wanted.

[Dead Corpse]

Amen...

[tacticalogic]

Just doing a consistency check on the "It has to be wrong because it's the Ninth Circuit." argument.

[neverdem]

any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

So that means that states can infringe on federally recognized individual rights?

[RKV]

From the Dred Scott decision, "...For if they [blacks] were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Ditto. Color me a Life Member of the NRA.

[robertpaulsen]

"Properly read the 9th and 10th Amendments should have taken care of that at the founding."

No. As I stated, one of the amendments (of about 200) submitted by the states to Jefferson was one that applied the BOR to the states. It was rejected.

The due process clause of the 14th amendment has been used to selectively incorporate the first eight amendments and make them applicable to the states. The second amendment has never been incorporated -- it still applies only to the federal government.

Your gun rights are protected by your state constitution.

[steplock]

the second amendment was written so we could protect ourself from the likes of this 9th circus court when our govt refused to....

That is why these judges are afraid - they had better be very much afraid because the amendment was written about THEM!

[Joe Hadenuf]

Considering our recorded history, one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand? A simpler question is: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?

Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.

Bravo, great article Mr. Skidmore. Right in the ten ring.

[RKV]

No - as already demonstrated above re: Article 6. It was not needed (an amendment to apply the BOR to the states) because it ALREADY APPLIED.

[SAJ]

At law (well, traditional objective law at least), the various Amendments, being by definition intentional changes to the original document, are (traditionally) held to trump any affected portions of the original.

Here, the Commerce Clause would (traditionally) take a back seat to the 2nd.

No guarantees, certainly, of what ruling a modern-day ''court'' might make.

[RKV]

That view is one which many jurists use to manipulate the plain meaning of the Constitution to get the desired results - as opposed to a consistent and intellectually honest view which would show the Constitution is the highest law of the land and applies to the states.

[tacticalogic]

No guarantees, certainly, of what ruling a modern-day ''court'' might make.

US v Miller, and the AWB are proof of that.

[Dead Corpse]

So that means that states cannot infringe on federally recognized individual rights?

That's better. NO. They cannot. That is what the whole "Supreme Law of the Land" thingie was supposed to mean. One set of enumerated Rights, like; freedom of movement, speech, and property ownership, that applies to us all. Only through amendment of the Constitution, or in a criminal proceeding as punishment, were our Rights to be taken from us.

[Woahhs]

I wonder if this writer bothered to read the dissenting opinions in the Silviera case. If so, the words of Judge Alex Kozinski would have told the stark truth of the matter...

Kozinski's dissent alone serves to show how the 9th Circuit is trying to re-write the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

Be that as it may, Kozinski's opinion is still a dissent. It would have no more value than if that dissent mandated backpack nukes for pre-schoolers.

Moral victories taste good, but we'll still starve.

[Abcdefg]

Anti-federalists were skeptical of any new constitution and saw the federalist hopes as lust by ambitious men for a "splendid empire" where, in the time-honored way, "the people would be burdened with taxes, conscriptions, and campaigns." They saw the enlarged powers of any central government as familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.

And they were correct.