Posted on 10/28/2004 6:03:10 PM PDT by tpaine
The states have MANY powers not granted to congress. Such as, again, making you pay tax money to support a state run church. Shall I post the four or five Madison Hamilton quotes about the almost limitless power of the states again?
Yes, the states have only so much power re: the militia, but if a state wants to regulate firearms for one of a billion diff reasons that have nothing to do with the mil, they may do so. Again, is there ANYBODY, PERSON, THING, OR INSTITUTION that supports this reading of yours?
Yes, it is an individual right, just like the right not to be taxed for a FEDERALLY supported church. AGAIN and again and again and again and again and again and again -- for roughly one hundred years the states operated without any regard for the BOR. Want to see the list again?
You are supposed to find a source that says the BOR was meant to apply to the states. If CT had said, "The RTKBA has always been meant to prohibit state regulation" that would have fit the bill. Again -- I thought you were NOT relying on the BOR for the gun rites?
So far, so good.
but if a state wants to regulate firearms for one of a billion diff reasons that have nothing to do with the mil, they may do so.
How can they ban firearms without affecting the militia?
We all know what case law case says about the RKBA, but go ahead and do as you see fit.
Because as of right now, there is no fed law that I know of requiring anybody to be armed in any way or to participate in any way with any militia at anytime in any place in any manner whatsoever. Also, it is perfectly reasonable for the fed gove to say you, you, and you are in the mil as of now, we will supply you with guns bullets and uniforms. Therefore the state could take your private guns and not interfere with such a law. Again, none of this is what I like or prefer, but that's the way it is. And AGAIN, considering that we are on a topic (Guns) that has been hotly debated for at least 50 years now by tens of thousands of authorities and courts, etc., I'd like to know, again, if there is anybody on God's green earth that subscribes to this theory other than you.
How can a State disarm its citizens without violating the above Clauses and the Second Amendment?
333 posted by Ken H
_____________________________________
Well put.
You will NOT get a rational answer from any 'states rights' advocate on this forum.
337 tpaine
_____________________________________
"Marshalling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."
-- Justice Clarence Thomas, Printz v US
340 Ken H
_____________________________________
As we see, the attempted rationalization is based on ONE DOZEN FOX in the HENHOUSE SUPREME COURT CASES which claim the BOR does not apply to the states.
Next we'll be asked to believe that our government man is here to help.
Is it your position that a State can violate a personal right?
Again -- I thought you were NOT relying on the BOR for the gun rites?
Article I, Sec. 8 is sufficient to keep the States from endangering national security by disarming the Militia. Do you agree?
Didn't I JUST cover this??? Didn't 7 of the original 13 states have state supported churches? Again -- the states could indeed ignore the BOR and they did indeed ignore the BOR. You just admitted that you are aware of the case law. Are you? For 100 years the states, the fed gov, and the supreme court allowed the states to violate personal rights all the time.
Obviously I don't agree. And again -- nobody in the entire history of the globe has ever agreed. Have you found anybody yet?
Do you agree that the Militia in 1787 consisted of all able bodied men?
Did the Founders consider an armed citizenry necessary to national security?
Does it make sense that the Founders assigned control of the Militia to Congress and also meant that States could endanger national security by disarming citizens?
Not only is there no case law, there's no human being supporting this argument. It's perhaps not the way I would have done it, but the fed could always arm the mil the same way it armed the regular army. And again, IF!!!!!!!!!!!!! the fed gov passed a law such that it required all men be armed for mil service, I've already said I'd like it. No such law exists now, and the states have the power to regulate firearms.
With your view of the Constitution, the right to defend your family and yourself with a firearm can be criminalized by a State. And I know you just hate it!
Yes it can, and yes I do. Again, what I WANT in the cons is irrelevant. As an adult, I have no problem whatsoever realizing that the Framers failed to load up the cons with everything that I would ever desire. I realize it and I deal with it.
With your view of the Constitution, the right to defend your family and yourself with a firearm can be criminalized by a State.
And I know you just hate it!
You just don't understand Ken!
If you wrap yourself in our flag, define yourself as a member for a long time, claim not to be a faker or a troll and love guns, you can say most anything to establish that States can infringe upon our Constitutional RKBA's.
It's for the cause! The cause of 'states rights' is more important than any individuals right to self defense.
- You must get with the agenda. Big brother knows best,
If the federal government acknowledges that right is held by the people, in the clear wording of the amendment, Article VI is a further safeguard for that right, as Article VI tells the state that it cannot infringe on that right either by virtue of the fact that the right keep and bear arms is a right held by the people.
Let me repeat: neither the fedguv nor the state can infringe upon the right to bear arms. The amendment does not have to be incorporated, as it is already an admission and acknowledgment that the people's right right to keep and bear arms was pre-existing. How plain can it get?
Ken H:
Is it your position that a State can violate a personal right?
Government is the controlled, and presumably just, infringement of rights in the service of preserving and defending the rights of others. So, to state categorically that recognition of a preexisting right implies that the right may never be infringed by the state seems mistaken.
Actually, all rights are inherent in the person, weather currently recognized or not. Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.
Do you think a State may legitimately disarm its citizens?
Actually, all rights are inherent in the person, weather currently recognized or not. Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.
Is that not the current situation with the First and Fourth Amendments vs the Second?
What are your thoughts on whether USSC should incorporate the Second as well?
The whole doctrine of inc. is completely bogus, invented like much of sc law. IOW, the BOR still does NOT apply to the states. However, if the SC insists on saying that ANY part of the BOR applies to the states, then I DEMAND that the whole thing apply, most especially including the 2nd amend.
The USSC has already said that the First and Fourth Amendments apply to the States.
Are you in favor of USSC incorporating the Second?
Philosophically, I think it is unjust for the state to remove the means to defend oneself. I'm not a fan of prior restraint in general. Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution. If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.
We usually react to this philosophic/pragmatic disparity by saying, "I don't agree with the law, but that's the law." We then go about changing that law in the political arena.
Database:
Preexistence should not be a criteria by which we elevate the importance of one right and in the converse, devalue some other right.
Ken H:
Is that not the current situation with the First and Fourth Amendments vs the Second?
My comments were given from a perspective of philosophy. Your description of the uneven treatment of the 1st and 4th vs 2nd ammendments is a practical issue of government and law. Is their treatment is unequal? Yes. Do I think that's right? No. However, the unequal treatment is certainly not based on whether the issues in the respective ammendments preexisted the BOR.
What are your thoughts on whether USSC should incorporate the Second as well?
The bill of rights is less a list of personal rights, as limitations on the federal government in order to protect individual rights in relation to federal government power. So, I view the incorporation of the BOR by the USSC an overstepping of its power. It is essentially making up laws.
Pragmatically, we have a system of government in which power is delegated to the state via a constitution.
If the people of the state delegate authority to disarm its citizens then it is legally legitimate for the state to do so.
Wrong. The 'people' have no such authority to so delegate, -- under our republican form of Constitutional government.
As Justice Marshal noted in Marbury, 1803:
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."
It defies all common sense to write a Constitution for a United States, then claim that separate States can ignore its Amendments protecting individual rights.
It is constitutionally illegitimate for a state to infringe on our RKBA's.
Absolutely and positively. Nothing could be more corrupt than the SC picking and choosing which parts of the BOR it wants to incorporate. If the BOR was incorporated by the 14th amendment, then the WHOLE thing was incorporated. As I noted somewhere else: either the 14th was meant or it was NOT meant to make the BOR apply to the states, but it WAS DAMN SURE NOT MEANT to mean the SC gets to decide which rights apply, to whom, when, and get to do so at its leisure. That much I can be sure of.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.