Posted on 03/20/2007 4:04:15 PM PDT by neverdem
The correct answer to that oft-abused question: your right to swing your fist ends at my nose.
The RKBA exists, if you look at it a little differently, to disarm those who abuse their RKBA. Persons A and B have a right to arms, but if B threatens A, A can respond by using his to disarm B (heck, that's why A is carrying). When you get to large-scale arms, it's still the same issue - just the threat covers more people at greater distances. Howitzers can still be owned and used safely (and are indeed legal! just a little paperwork, $200 tax, and the problem of actually finding one for sale); nukes, however, require extraordinary care as it is "pointing" at everyone within a few mile range.
Ergo, you can own anything - as the Founding Fathers intended. Just be aware that should reasonable people conclude there is a viable threat, they can use _their_ arms to disarm you until the threat is reasonably extinguished.
Pre-emptive blind banning is not permitted.
And now, for the second time, a high court has told the lower courts they're seriously misguided.
BTW: a state high court (NJ) also ruled the same thing yesterday.
Just because a sequence of precident leads lower courts to a way to not say something they don't want to say doesn't make it right. There is plenty of history of courts going one way, then dramatically changing course wholesale. Sometimes wrong conclusions just don't hold up forever.
Because that right is being infringed.
Lawmakers don't like an armed populace.
You contradicted yourself.
The Militia Act of 1792 was a FEDERAL law REQUIRING militia participants be armed (and have quick access thereto). That overrode whatever limitations the states wanted, if any.
Just because they prohibit 'em doesn't mean the prohibition is legal. NJ just declared (to wit: recognized) residents have a 2nd Amendment right which the state cannot infringe.
Pretty close. He believes that the 2nd Amendment ensures the right of citizens to participate in a gov't-run militia, according to the gov't's rules, which may be unlimited - including identifiying who can bear what particular arms, and where they may be kept. Yes, he actually believes that, and has admitted as such. There really isn't much point arguing it as he shows no interest in modifying his position.
You sure? ;-)
In plain violation of that "...shall not be infringed" bit.
Here is a sentence with the exact same structure.
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
And here is the rebuttal to your expected "no it isn't" reply as well as an explanation of why it IS an individual right.
http://www.largo.org/literary.html
I'm done reading your posts as they bring nothing to the discussion.
Then stop posting and finish reading. If you haven't read the decision (you've posted nothing indicating you have read it, and a lot indicating you haven't), then stop telling everyone how they're wrong about it. The decision systematically shreds your arguments.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the secutity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed
My sentence structure exactly matches the sentence structure of the second ammendment.
So please answer my question. In my rewording of the second ammendment, who can read and keep books? Please do not go off on tangents about regulating book buying and well stocked libraries. In your understanding of the English language, who can read books in the above sentence?
Then how does SCOTUS "incorporate rights to the states" via the 14th?
Thanks for the back up hazcat. Your link was very informative.
The Supremacy Clause says the U.S. Constitution is the law of the land. It does not say that everything in the U.S. Constitution applies to the states. That would be silly, given that parts of the constitution apply to the states and parts to the federal government.
Let's read it again. I believe that that clause itself speaks directly to, and refutes, your contention.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding
So, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and IMHO, it can be read no other way. But the Constitution is not the total law. Anything NOT in the Constitution is left to the states or the people. Having said that, it is clear that the 2nd Amendment is in the US Constitution, therefore, as it says, it is the supreme law of the land.
Clearly stated, the Supremacy Clause states as regards the 2nd amendment, that the 2nd amendment is the supreme law of the land, any laws or constitutions of any state that say anything to the contrary notwithstanding.
From my perspective, that plain definition/understanding is obvious, IMHO, to anyone who reads it. As obvious as the meanig of the 2nd amendment is itself to anyone who reads it as the judges recognized.
Unfortunately, in our day, common sense and clear reading are not a given anymore, and for a multiitude of reasons, from ideology, to pure power, to ignorance, to misinterpretation, to an out and out intent to water down and destroy the constitutiojnmal integrity of our Republic, unconstitutinal laws, acts, and edicts are passed all the time in our society under the color of law, when their constituional veracity is not worth the paper they are written on.
The guy behind Parker knew he had a good case, and was funding & running it himself, and didn't want anyone else screwing it up.
In the end, Seegars failed, and Parker very nearly did (only plaintiff Heller maintained standing thru the latest verdict).
I converted the PDF to HTML to make for easier reading HERE.
New York State quotes the 2nd Amendment practically verbatum in its Civil Rights Law.
I asked a high NY state judge what the legal impact of that was. She had no clue.
SCOTUS avoided many cases because they had other factors which unduly detracted from the RKBA angle. SCOTUS wants a pure RKBA case; nobody has given them one yet.
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.