Posted on 03/14/2007 9:45:28 AM PDT by spunkets
Recently, gun-ban advocate group “Mothers Against Gun Violence,” falsely asserted that selling a firearm to a felon is somehow not a crime in Wisconsin. In reality, committing such an act is a federal felony, as well as a crime as defined in Wisconsin code sections 941.29(4) and 939.05(2)(b).
The group made this false claim to generate support for an anti-freedom bill, LRB 0861/2 introduced by State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-6), which would require all private transfers of firearms in Milwaukee County to be conducted through a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL). Of course, the FFL would charge an unknown fee for the service, placing what amounts to a tax on all private firearms transfers. Unfortunately, a gun storeowner in the county is supporting LRB 0861/2. By all appearances, he is attempting to sellout your firearms freedoms with the hope of making a handsome profit by conducting the government-mandated transfers.
Simply put, there is no private transaction “loophole.” When law-abiding gun owners participate in a private transfer of a firearm, they are merely exercising their Second Amendment freedoms and right to dispose of private property. There isn’t a shred of credible evidence to substantiate the claim that legal private transfers are a means by which criminals obtain firearms.
Furthermore, LRB 0861/2 would strike a blow to the heart of Wisconsin’s statewide firearm preemption law prohibiting local jurisdictions from enacting laws more restrictive than state law. This would set a dangerous precedent and threaten the future of gun rights statewide.
It is critical that you contact your State Senator at (608) 266-2517 and your State Representative at (608) 266-1501 today and respectfully request that he or she oppose LRB 0861/2.
Can you ping WI? Thanks.
Rather than banning guns in Milwaukee, most Wisconsin residents favor many more guns in Milwaukee, provided of course they put a high fence around the city before they throw in the additional weapons. When the noise stops.......Wisconsin will be a better state.
People would be wise to take their business elsewhere and let this guy starve.
Do you know who the name of the FFL dealer that is supporting this law?
first I have heard of this. Thanks for the post.
No I don't. It would be an easy task for someone in Milwuakee to find out though. It's true that whoever it is, simply wants the $25/ gun transfer fee.
You're welcome.
From the JSonline:
"He said he has done background checks for people who are selling guns privately and want to make sure they aren't selling to a felon. Beatovic said all gun sales should require background checks."
Badger was in hot water for being the biggest supplier of guns later used in crime (from wisconsin, iirc). Since then they seemed to be trying to work the PR angle.
They were the top in the nation in '98 and again in '06. Since the guy sold them after the feds and WI AG's office OKed the sale after their background check, his BS of attempting to grab $25 for every private sale in the county is bogus. The rats just want to make sure they can generate and keep records and oversee every transaction between friends and relatives. Clown idiots like Beatovic just want to grab the $25.
reminds me of the sellout by domestic gun makers in support of the 1968 GCA because it restricted import of some cheap import guns that were digging into their profit margin.
How long will it take some people in the gun business to learn that the more ground you give, the more ground the anti-gun crowd will try to take?
IF I lived in that area, I would definitely stage a boycott against that turncoat arms dealer! Shut him down! The sorry POS deserves the wrath of gun owners.
Yes he does. There's better stores in the area run by folks that support their fellow's rights: The Shooter's Shop in West Allis, and Buttram's sporting goods in Milwaukee.
Business lobbying for legislation resulting in financial gain for them is very common. Everything from building codes to environmental regs is enabled and has been pushed by their efforts. They're like flies in the State legislatures, Congress and the various regulatory agencies seeking restrictive rules benefiting their operations from both cash flow from forced sales and competative advantage aspects.
Which is why "three-strikes" laws are so necessary. I know some other folks oppose such an idea, but I believe that the way to "inhibit" gun crime is with SENTENCING. If a teen commits any crime in which a gun is involved, he gets tried as an adult. If an adult commits any crime in which a gun is involved, the sentence is automatically doubled. If the gun is actually fired or a person is injured, the sentence is automatically tripled. If a person dies, the perp gets the death penalty.
" Oh how clever, the second amendment is also a right to dispose of property! YAWNNNNNN....."
THis is from the NRA-ILA. Note the conjunction and" is used. They were not even suggesting hte 2nd Amendment covers private property transactions. They included it as an additional right that was being infringed upon. Private transactions are not business transactions, and the transaction here involves the parties' right to keep and bear arms.
Note the insistence before the conjunction 'and' that a transfer is merely a exercise of the second amendment. Of course, this is all assuming that someone can someday make the case the 14th incorporates the 2nd. The court still hasn't decided if the 1st has been, only "assumes."
It's not the transfer they're referring to, but both parties' right to keep/own and bear arms. The transfer itself is referred to in the 2nd part of the compound sentence as an addtional and unrelated right.
"Of course, this is all assuming that someone can someday make the case the 14th incorporates the 2nd. "
Nothing is assumed. The founders already made it clear that the right is an individual right that is not to be infringed by Congress. The Tanney court in Scottv Sanford already ade it clear that the right was recognized as a right of US citizens. That's an immunity covered by the 14th. To say otherwise is simply to deny what is. Nothing needs to be assumed at all, only an observation of what was and still is needs be made.
What is the point of all the above the reader might wonder? It is simply this: No where in the debates will anyone find any motive or intent to confer an individual right to keep and bear arms through an act of amending the constitution. Instead, one will only find focus on enumerating a restriction upon Congress in disarming the body of people who make up State militias. It requires more than a stretch of truth to mold this simple fact into an individual right that can be enforced through the courts against a local municipal entity.The official interpretation by the House judiciary committee over the 14th amendment's meaning lead by the man who wrote it, John Bingham, said the privileges and immunities are only those embraced by article 4, section 2 prior to the adoption of the 14th. The 14th did not add any new P&I's to the amendment. The due process language was a jot-for-jot import from the 5th according to Bingham. When the day comes the court finally gets around to reviewing the committee report, any incorporation will be ruled invalid.
Irrelevant. The right and those that the right belongs to are to be found in plain English in hte 2nd amendment ot the Constituiton itself. THe 2nd Amendment and ite of the Bill of Rights says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. The right belongs to the people. They are the same people that are, and have been recognized as citizens of the US and are specifically mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and elsewhere in the Bill of rights. Those people are not the feds, the States, or Smurfs, they are anyone who is a citizen of the US.
" Instead, one will only find focus on enumerating a restriction upon Congress in disarming the body of people who make up State militias."
Since when is a State militia, the people Mr. Madison?
"John Bingham, said the privileges and immunities are only those embraced by article 4, section 2 prior to the adoption of the 14th."
It doesn't matter what Bingham said. What matters is the words of the Amend. and how Congress understood them. The words of the Amendment are, "no State shall make, or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction, the equal protection of the law."
Article 4 Sec 2 says, "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." These are the things recognized as belonging to any citizen of the US. They were partially identified by the Taney Court in Scott v Sanford. Specifically, the court recognized the right to keep and bear arms by any US citizen, applied to any citizen, regardless of the State they were presently in.
Congress recognized the 14th as an Amendment which recognized the existance of rights folks enjoyed , by virtue of being US citizens. The Amendment was enacted, because certain States were violating the rights of some of their citizens. The majorities hterein where violating hte rights of a minority of their citizens. The rights are what are recognized as the rights of US citizens regardless of what any majority, in any State thinks! Specifically, and undeniablly, the rights that are enumerated in the Bill of Rights ARE contained in the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US. That stands regardless of what anyone in particular says, because it's all written in plain English. That includes law professors, pinhead pundits, any majority, or anyone at all, regardless of position, or credentials held.
"John Bingham, said the privileges and immunities are only those embraced by article 4, section 2 prior to the adoption of the 14th."
BS!
Whoops. Should have been:
"When the day comes the court finally gets around to reviewing the committee report, any incorporation will be ruled invalid."
BS!
> Since when is a State militia, the people Mr. Madison?
State militias back then were composed entirely of the body of the people of a community under State laws and regulations.
>>It doesn't matter what Bingham said. What matters is the words of the Amend. and how Congress understood them. <<
Sure it matters what Bingham said because entire incorporation as it stands now rests on his speeches! The committee report of January 30, 1871 IS the official understanding of the words by the Congress who had adopted it. It is called legislative precedent and that carries the ultimate interpretation weight.
Congress recognized the 14th as an Amendment which recognized the existance of rights folks enjoyed , by virtue of being US citizens. The Amendment was enacted, because certain States were violating the rights of some of their citizens.
No, the amendment’s first section was enacted in response to President Andrew Johnson’s caste laws, not in response to State abuse of rights. The rights folks enjoyed were those rights of the State, not the US Constitution. That is why article 4 was incorporated, to prevent visiting citizens of another state to be placed on unequal footing with citizens of the host state through legislation enactment.
Here is how Bingham put it:
“The gentleman will pardon me. The amendment is exactly in the language of the Constitution; that is to say, it secures to the citizens of each of the States all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. It is not to transfer the laws of one State to another State at all. It is to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States. If the State laws do not interfere, those immunities follow under the Constitution.”
Lefties lie, it's their standard MO.
milwaukee is just too close to the state of chicago. and just as i was thinking about moving to wisconsin so i can keep my private property.
Ridiculous! THe subject of the sentence is the right. The phase qualifying the right is, "of the people". That means the right belongs to them, not some state militia.
"State militias back then were composed entirely of the body of the people of a community under State laws and regulations."
If the founders intended that the Amendment refer to State militia, hten they would have specifically referred to state militia, and not the people". The people refers to citizens of the US, not members of some state militia.
"Sure it matters what Bingham said because entire incorporation as it stands now rests on his speeches! "
No. As I said, it matter what Cngress, the others htat voted ion the matter thought of the matter. They wrote and justified the 18USC24x codes based on what they thought. What they thought was that rights, specifically the right to vote, due process, equality under the law and those enumerated and unenumerated rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights belonged to US citizens and the 14th Amendment was created and placed in the Constitution to protect those rights against infringement by any lower jurisdiction under the Constitution.
Re: Congress recognized the 14th as an Amendment which recognized the existance of rights folks enjoyed , by virtue of being US citizens. The Amendment was enacted, because certain States were violating the rights of some of their citizens.
No, the amendment’s first section was enacted in response to President Andrew Johnson’s caste laws, not in response to State abuse of rights.
Ridiculous! Johnson was a president and didn't make law, Congress does and did. The Amend was instituted and used as I said. THe black codes were instituted by States in both the N and the S. Congress' intent was to enforce equality under the law and protect the rights of all, equally and regardless of what the majority in any particular jurisdiction willed. That included recognizeing the rights of every US citizen and insuring they were protected, and protected equally.
"That is why article 4 was incorporated, to prevent visiting citizens of another state to be placed on unequal footing with citizens of the host state through legislation enactment."
ridiculous. Read the 18USC24x codes. Note they apply regardless of race, or racial motivation today. What counts is US citizenship, nothing else. Note carefully that infringing on rights under the color of law is a crime. That law was created and justified by those who wrote and ratified the 14th. Levin and Co, notwithstanding.
Re: How Bingham put it.
"The amendment is exactly in the language of the Constitution; that is to say, it secures to the citizens of each of the States all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States.
The language is contained in the 14th. The privileges and immunities formerly off limits to and otherwise respected by Congress were NOW placed off limits to infringment by Any lower jurisdiction. That was done, because lower jurisdictions were infringing on the rights of some of hteir citizens, in particular, minorities. Minorities that had no hope of ptherwise out voting the tyranical majorities that subjugated them.
" It is not to transfer the laws of one State to another State at all."
That's right. "It is to secure to the citizens of each State all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States in the several States."
One of which IS THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, as was recognized by the Taney Court, that refused to acknowledge that any negro had ever been a citizen of the US!
Do you have to pay $25 when you sell your car pivately, to make sure the buyer hasn't had his driver's license revoked?
Why should one have to PAY to exercise a RIGHT? Didn't they ban poll taxes? Let the cowardly public taxpayers (who are the purported beneficiaries of background checks, anyway) pay for the checks...they surely don't benefit the BUYER any - they just waste his time!
Just as in this case, the buyer must pay a sales, or use tax. There is no requirment that the transaction be accomplished by a 3rd party demanding a fee, or that the transaction be recorded and background checks be made on the purchaser.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
They're just snakes from the slime pits. A $4 bill? Inflation? What happened to the $3 bill? That's what they used to pass.
Rather than banning guns in Milwaukee, most Wisconsin residents favor many more guns in Milwaukee, provided of course they put a high fence around the city before they throw in the additional weapons. When the noise stops.......Wisconsin will be a better state."
Born in Madison..
Raised in Middleton..
Lived in Milwaukee..
Don't miss any of it. Specially Milwaukee.
Fencing it all and throwing in all the guns and Ammo they need would be a good solution.
This is the same place where voting as many times as you can between 7 AM and 8 PM is a sport..especially for the University students.
The House Committee on the Militia in December of 1833 had no illusion what the Second Amendment stood for when it considered modifying existing militia law in the several States to allow for the following:
...to permit each State in time of peace, in the discretion of its Legislature, to require no person to bear arms under twenty-one, or over forty years of age, and to permit the inspection of arms to be taken by companies instead of by regiments or battalions; and, also into the propriety and justice of providing arms and accoutrements at the public expense for those liable to bear arms...First of all, it was recognized that such matters as to who can, or cannot bear arms, is up to the State legislature. If the Second Amendment was an outright individual protected right as some like to believe it is, then such State laws would clearly be violating persons under the age of 21, and over the age of 40, right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.
Clearly then, the context of bearing arms is purely in a military service context. Secondly, the keeping of arms was subject to inspection, further confirming the keeping of arms was not in the sense individual ownership but in the context of military hardware used in the service of the militias.
[snip]
This link quotes those involved in the 14th amendment ratification and proves I speak the truth: Link
It's a felony to sell to a felon.
So how is a private citizen supposed to know if another private citizen is a felon?
I would suggest you stay in Illinois, and consider it missionary work.
After this case, their will need to be a case that asks similar questions in a state that has a right to bear arms in the state constitution. Then there will need to be a case in a state that has no right to bear arms in the state constitution.
Then there must be a case that pushes the militia regulations wider, building on the prescedents and including "Miller..." that provides the previously missing evidence that the militia/national guard uses fully automatic rifles, machineguns, sawed off shotguns, mortars and antitank missiles.
Then a case that shows that "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" show intent for privately owned crew served to exist in peacetime so that these weapons can be at the service of the nation in time of war.
We must build up our prescedents grad
This is going to be complicated as I am reading a lot of half cases here:
….“First of all, it was recognized that such matters as to who can, or cannot bear arms, is up to the State legislature. If the Second Amendment was an outright individual protected right as some like to believe it is, then such State laws would clearly be violating persons under the age of 21, and over the age of 40, right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.”
This is true. At the time the near universal legal opinion was that the 2nd amendment was only a restraint on the Federal Government.
“the corollary, from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give congress a power to disarm the people.” - William Rowe 1829
“…the right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose’. This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but as has been seen, means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress.” – US v Cruikshank
“it is now well settled that the amendments to the Constitution of the United States of March 4 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States.” – Hill v State of Georgia
You then go on to say
….”Clearly then, the context of bearing arms is purely in a military service context. Secondly, the keeping of arms was subject to inspection, further confirming the keeping of arms was not in the sense individual ownership but in the context of military hardware used in the service of the militias. “
I do not know where you get this. The Courts disagreed. Service in the Militia was seen as almost universal and folk were expected to show up with their own arms per the Militia Act of 1792. Presser v Illanois noted:
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision in the question (of the new Illinois Militia) out of view, prohibit people from keeping and bearing arms…”
The right WAS seen as a right that included a right to own arms suitable for militia use but it was not a right limited to such to the militia.
….“Uh, NO. No where in the debates will you find anyone in the year 1866 claiming the 14th binded the bill of rights against the States. In fact, EVERYONE recognized the fact the bill of rights under the US constitution was not binding against the states. Bingham said it was not the intention to apply them, rather make article 4, section 2 enforcible so to prevent the court from ruling otherwise as they had in Barron v. Baltimore.”
This is simply wrong. I have read a lot of the debates surrounding the 14th and the newspaper coverage. There were a host of direct quotes that advise one and all that the intent of the Congress in this matter WAS to force the states to provide the protections of the Bill of Rights.
“there is an amendment offered by the distinguished gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bingham] which provides in effect that Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation all the guarantees of the Constitution." – Congressman Ignatius Donnelly
“The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and to all persons in the several States equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property” – First Draft of the 14th Amendment Feb 13 1866
Bingham noted that before his Amendment "this immortal bill of rights embodied in the Constitution, rested for its execution and enforcement hitherto upon the fidelity of the States."
You noted Barron V Baltimore but you sort of forgot to note the entire discussion around that case as it occurred on the floor of the Congress:
Quoting Barron v. Baltimore (1833) Representative Michael Kerr of Indiana argued that the Bill of Rights limited only Congress. Martin Thayer of Pennsylvania responded: "Of what value are those guarantees if you deny all power on the part of the Congress of the United States to execute and enforce them.?" Thayer's argument exhibited the intent of what would become the Fourteenth Amendment.
When discussing the Civil Rights Bill :
“the Civil Rights Bill would "enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution". Citing Aristotle, Bingham argued that, by virtue of being a citizen, one is guaranteed every right in the Constitution. In The Politics and other writings familiar to nineteenth-century Americans, Aristotle postulated that true citizenship included the right to possess arms, and that those who are deprived of arms are oppressed by armed tyrants.
Bingham quoted § 1 of the Civil Rights Bill, including the terms "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property," and reiterated his support for "amending the Constitution of the United States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such abuse of power in the future." He explained that "the seventh and eighth sections of the Freedmen's Bureau bill enumerate the same rights and all the rights and privileges that are enumerated in the first section of this [the Civil Rights] bill." Bingham then quoted the seventh section of the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, which provided that all persons shall "have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and estate, including the constitutional right of bearing arms."
http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm
Note that Bingham was debating the Civil Rights act at the exact same time he was also working on the 14th. His comments as to his intent for the 14th directly refutes your contention.
In April Bingham proposed and the Committee approved the following language:
"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”
In May Congressman Stevens in debate in the House noted:
"are all asserted, in some form or another, in our DECLARATION or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This Amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States."
“Bingham averred that the amendment would protect "the privileges and immunities of all the citizens of the Republic and the inborn rights of every person within its jurisdiction." He added that it would furnish a remedy against state injustices, such as infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. By stating that Eighth Amendment violations would be prohibited, Bingham implied that the Fourteenth Amendment would prohibit deprivations of any rights recognized in the Bill of Rights. “
When Senator Howard introduced the Amendment into the senate he said:
"the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;. .. the right to keep and bear arms". Howard averred: "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees”
Your contention that there was no intent to incorporate the Bill of Rights is simply wrong on its face. Even a cursory review of the debate at the time proves it wrong.
This is ridiculous. The 2nd Amend refers to a right of the people, not the rights of any militia, or State. Furthermore rules regarding an organized militia are not rules that apply to the people in general.
"Clearly then, the context of bearing arms is purely in a military service context."
No, not clearly! The militia is the militia and the people are the people.
Re: What they thought was that rights, specifically the right to vote, due process, equality under the law and those enumerated and unenumerated rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights belonged to US citizens and the 14th Amendment was created and placed in the Constitution to protect those rights against infringement by any lower jurisdiction under the Constitution.
"Uh, NO. No where in the debates will you find anyone in the year 1866 claiming the 14th binded the bill of rights against the States.
From Bingham, on 3-9-1866:
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State of the Union…"
from Bingham, 1871:
""Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
...
“These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment…”
"In fact, EVERYONE recognized the fact the bill of rights under the US constitution was not binding against the states."
Until the 14th Amend. See Bingham's comments above from 1866 and 1871.
"Bingham said it was not the intention to apply them, rather make article 4, section 2 enforcible so to prevent the court from ruling otherwise as they had in Barron v. Baltimore."
The language of Article IV, Sec to was used. Art IV, Sec 2 was already enforcible, by virtue of it's use of the verb shall.
" This link quotes those involved in the 14th amendment ratification and proves I speak the truth: Link"
It proves nothing, but it does illustrate P.A. Madison has no grasp of the matter.
Absolutely...no one reading the debate over the Freedmans act, the Civil Rights Act and the 14th can come to any other conclusion but that the clear and oft stated intent of the 14th was to incorporate the BOR's into state law and to insure the states did not have the power to remove the rights of blacks to hold arms, assemble and vote.
That the courts did not care is another issue.
The obvious question is, if the constitution intended the second amendment to mean that the states could arm a militia, why didn't they put that power in Article I, which describes who does what with the militia, and why didn't they put it in Article IV, which lists and restricts powers of the several states?
... “These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment…”
"In fact, EVERYONE recognized the fact the bill of rights under the US constitution was not binding against the states."
You left out the rest of Bingham's comment, "until the 14th Amend."
" You will not find Bingham suggesting the first 8 amendments would be made a limitation by the 14th in the year 1866!"
I already did, and posted it to you. Here it is again.
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State of the Union…"
Bingham, 3-9-1866
" Two months earlier Bingham officially said in a non-partisan report and not in a very partisan speech: The clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities embraced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. "
So? Those privileges and immunities contained and embraced in the original Constitution are contained in the Bill of Rights. Again, Bingham:
"Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ... “These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment…”
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the intent was to apply the protections contained in the Bill of Rights to all lower jurisdictions, and that what was protected, was the privileges and immunities explicitly recognized in those Amends. Is it that you, unlike those at the time that were hypocritical, or simply reacting to the hypocritical intent of others desiring to maintain segregation laws and policies in place, wish to deny the protections contained in the Bill of Rights altogether?
The 14th is quite clear, and so is the intent to protect the rights recognized in the 14th, regardless of the obfuscations of those involved in it's establishment. Art 4 Sec 2 is clear and enforcible. The only reason for the establishment of that element in the 14th, was to apply the protections imposed on the feds by the Bill of Rights, to all lower jurisdictions. That stands regardless of the political BS that flew at the time, involving continued attempts to deny the rights of some US citizens by diverse majorities. Bingham's own State of Ohio enacted discriminatory segregation codes. It's obvious the BS flew and continued to fly, because of the pressures of petty tyrants.
“Not their arms they bought and personally own, but arms provided to them by the State to keep. In Ohio the militia did not physically keep their arms at home, but were stored in a depot. Other States the militia kept their arms at home under State regulations.”
Not the Militia organized and mandated by federal law by the founders
…….And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes…..
The Militia Act 1792
“Yes, the Fifth Amendment's due process guarantee.”
And as debated elsewhere, the 2nd amendment and the 8th, as well as assembly guarantees.
“Those quotes were taken during the anti-KKK bill debates in March of 1871, and have nothing to do with the application of the 14th amendment. Two months earlier Bingham released a House report clearly stating the 14th amendment had nothing what-so-ever to do with any bill of right other than the Fifth.”
No, they were not. This discussion took place March 8 1866 in debate over the Civil Rights Bill. On March 27th President Johnson (president 1865 to 1869) vetoed it but his veto was overridden.
Good try, but you have your debates wrong. The Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Freedmans Bill and the 14th were all under debate that same Spring.
…….. “Why don't you quote Stevens seconds before he said the above?”
Lets put the discussion in order…
“Let us now refer to the provisions of the proposed amendment.
"The first section prohibits the States from abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or unlawfully depriving them of life, libery, or property, or of denying to any person within their jurisdiction the 'equal' protection of the laws."
……..He is speaking of State prohibition, not rights granted. The P&I's he is talking about are those under Article 4, Section 2, not bill of rights.
"are all asserted, in some form or another, in our DECLARATION or organic law. But the Constitution limits only the action of Congress, and is not a limitation on the States. This Amendment supplies that defect, and allows Congress to correct the unjust legislation of the States."
Are you saying that the section I noted, coming after the portion you quote, does not speak to the intent of amendment. That, though he said specifically that the amendment supplies that defect, did not mean it supplied the defect??
When Senator Howard introduced the Amendment into the senate he said:
"the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press;. .. the right to keep and bear arms". Howard averred: "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees”
You claim this is not his intent nor was it the intent of the Congress, despite it being a direct quote from his speech as to the intent of the Amendment when he introduced it to the Senate from the Joint Committee 23 May 1866.
Perhaps this would be a further indication of its and his intent:
“Howard explained that Congress could enforce the Bill of Rights through the Enforcement Clause, "a direct affirmative delegation of power to Congress to carry out all the principles of all these guarantees." Howard added: "It [the amendment] will, if adopted by the States, forever disable every one of them from passing laws trenching upon those fundamental rights and privileges which pertain to citizens of the United States, and to all persons who happen to be within their jurisdiction."
Sorry, I have a host of direct quotes from the debates. In addition the papers of the time, reporting the debate, agreed:
The NY Times and the NY Herald both reported, front page, that Howard explained that the 14th Amendment would protect “the personal rights guaranteed by the first eight amendments of the US Constitution “. It was further reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the National Intelligencer and can be found in the Congressional Record.
The key to infringing rights successfully:
Get an otherwise disinterested third party financially involved as a key to exercising that right, and focus enforcement (& punishment) on him.
Carrot and stick for someone who really wants the carrot and really avoids the stick.
I already did, and posted it to you. Here it is again.
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State of the Union…"
Bingham, 3-9-1866
He is talking about enforcing the Fifth's due process since that is the only portion of the bill of rights the 14th amendment touches upon.
Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the intent was to apply the protections contained in the Bill of Rights to all lower jurisdictions, and that what was protected, was the privileges and immunities explicitly recognized in those Amends. Is it that you, unlike those at the time that were hypocritical, or simply reacting to the hypocritical intent of others desiring to maintain segregation laws and policies in place, wish to deny the protections contained in the Bill of Rights altogether?
Bingham or anyone NEVER EVER implied directly or indirectly that the 14th would bind the bill of rights against the States. Here is how he introduced the amendment:
The residue of the resolution, as the House will see by a reference to the Constitution, is in the language of the second section of the fourth article, and of a portion of the Fifth Amendment adopted by the First Congress in 1789, and made part of the Constitution of the Country.
If it was the intent to apply the bill of rights why didn't Bingham or anyone say so when it mattered the most? Sorry, you cannot take a very partisan speech five years after the fact to revise history. Bingham put the entire issue to rest on January 30, 1871 that directly refutes any attempt to make the 14th anymore than it was intended to be.
Evil never rests and evil is never beaten.
You are just being stubborn. I have and can quote a lot of folk from the debate who did exactly what you claim was nver done, noted the intent to implement the BORs.
That's an illogical conclusion, because Bingham is talking about the entire first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights.
"Bingham or anyone NEVER EVER implied directly or indirectly that the 14th would bind the bill of rights against the States."
Of course he did. That's why I made the explict posts quoting his very clear statements of that fact. You're welcome to deny reality. I'm here to point out, that you are in fact doing so.
"If it was the intent to apply the bill of rights why didn't Bingham or anyone say so when it mattered the most?"
Again. Bingham, 3-9-1866: "But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations, in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it, the enforcement of the bill of rights, touching the life, liberty, and property of every citizen of the republic within every organized State of the Union…"
Bingham, 3-9-1866 And again in 1871:
" Mr. Speaker, that the scope and meaning of the limitations imposed by the first section, Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution may be more fully understood, permit me to say that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as contradistinguished from citizens of a State, are chiefly defined in the first eight amendments to the Constitution of the United States. ... “These eight articles I have shown never were limitations upon the power of the States, until made so by the fourteenth amendment…”
"Bingham put the entire issue to rest on January 30, 1871 that directly refutes any attempt to make the 14th anymore than it was intended to be."
No. What he said above stands. Any BS he spewed regarding opposition to women's sufferage is just that, BS. It's the same BS that flew in Plessy v Ferguson, and is flying now for purposes of denying the rights explicitly recognized and protected by the Bill of Rights. Only to the tyrant, is the Bill of Rights an impediment. To those who love Freedom, it is a welcomed and cherished blessing.
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.