Posted on 11/26/2005 12:43:07 PM PST by pabianice
"Under this bill, all private owners of handguns would have to register each handgun with the police and have a separate $ 250,000 liability insurance policy on each handgun or have that handgun confiscated"
Want to bet that police officers would be exempt from these requirements or that their dept woould pay for the insurance?
The People Republic of Massachusettes.
Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520:
"... the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause" [of the fourteenth amendment]
-----------------------------------------
The problem is that the 14th Amendment created (for each and every one of us) an artificial *person*, or legal entity.
What the Founders referred to as a Citizen of the united States (or a State Citizen) was twisted to mean a citizen of the United States, or 'US citizen'.
______________________________________________________________________
"... a construction is to be avoided, if possible, that would render the law unconstitutional, or raise grave doubts thereabout. In view of these rules it is held that `citizen' means `citizen of the United States,' and not a person generally, nor citizen of a State ..."
U.S. Supreme Court in US v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542:
______________________________________________________________________
In 1887 the Supreme Court in Baldwin v. Franks 7 SCt 656, 662; 120 US 678, 690 found that:
"In the constitution and laws of the United States the word `citizen' is generally, if not always, used in a political sense ... It is so used in section 1 of article 14 of the amendments of the constitution ..."
______________________________________________________________________
The US Supreme Court in Logan v. US, 12 SCt 617, 626:
"In Baldwin v. Franks ... it was decided that the word `citizen' .... was used in its political sense, and not as synonymous with `resident', `inhabitant', or `person' ..."
Oh come on, admit, it gets a little sticky.
Not even the most hardcore NRA member thinks an average citizen should be able to own...say...an anti-aircraft rocket launcher.
Then again, the Founders envisioned each state setting up their own rules.
Rules that complied with the 2nd, - no infringements.
If the majority of the people of Massachusetts don't want guns, as wrongheaded as that might be, who are we to deny them their wish?
'We' are people who demand that the law of the land, the 2nd Amendment, be supported by ALL officials, fed/state/local. -- As per their oaths of office.
The great thing about federalism is that there is another state to move to with more favorable laws.
Those who choose to ignore our Constitution are also free to leave the USA.
At least until some on this board get their wish and have the USSC tell us exactly what the second amendment means.
The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.
Probably.
The descendants of the men of the Boston Tea Party moved West over the past two hundred years. They were the men of the wagon trains and the Wild West. They live in Ohio and Oregon and Arizona now.
The current inhabitants of Massachusetts are in large part the children or grandchildren of more recent immigrants from non-Anglo-Saxon countries, places where abject bovine submission to tyranny has a long and sordid history.
-ccm
I knew a man in Switzerland who had an Oerlikon anti-aircraft gun in his back yard. About 10 feet long. Had a seat for the gunner, with hand cranks for azimuth and elevation, with firing controlled by a foot pedal. I think it shot 20mm cannon rounds.
The Swiss government sold it to him at surplus for 500 SFr.
I want one and think any honest citizen ought to be able to buy one.
-ccm
The USSC is only 'free' to tell other branches & levels of government to comply with our Constitution as written. - They are not free to change its meaning.
The Supreme Court says otherwise:
The court 'says' a LOT of things. Their opinions are not always correct.
"...The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. -- "
No rights are "granted" by governments. Our rights are self evident, inalienable, & shall not be infringed.
Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.
"As has been seen"? Who 'saw' that? Nine justices?
This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called...internal police." -- U.S. v. Cruikshank
And we see the result of such misguided court decisions. State & local governments use democratic 'majority rule' to overturn the Constitutional rule of law.
I don't agree but that's the way it is. The State can infringe on the rights of the people in regard to the 2nd Amendment.
Why? Because the Supreme Court said so.
Why put blame on the USSC? -- Most agree because they want States to have the power to control other people and admit it. No disgrace to support majority rule.. Many here do..
WRONG! The other amendments say "Congress shall make no law..." The 2nd says "The right...SHALL NƠT BE INFRINGED." That makes it an absolute.It is not directed at Congress. Shall not be infringed means everybody.
Safekeeping for future use in defense of this nation from its enemies, foreign and domestic.
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.
Tell me, did he have to get a permit and go through a background check? I'm guessing he did.
I'm as hardcore pro 2nd Amendment as anyone, but do I want a kid who just turned 18, or an emotionally unbalanced man with a death wish, to be able to walk up to a car lot and buy a tank?
Hell no. That's rediculous. If you don't think that sort of thing would start straight up warfare in certain gang neighborhoods, I think you are naive.
The good news is the Congress will not go there. Lott made a huge difference, in changing the terms of debate on gun control. It sucked the oxygen out of the "gun grabbers" on th issue. Ideas backed with data matter, they really do, in this case that an armed society really does seem to engender a polite society, based on the data. It changed my view. But Mass as I said wants to make a cultural statement. It gives meaning to the state of being of being a New England activist. It is in the genes of the place, which genes somehow managed to be passed on from the Puritan Calvinists to the Catholics. The Yankees in New England won, even while losing out demographically. Which reminds us, that it isn't all about demographics either.
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.