Posted on 03/24/2007 9:25:49 AM PDT by kiriath_jearim
"we're from the government and we're here to help", NOW BEND OVER!
We might not have them now, I don't know.
Notice that the NRA lost in Seegers, while Parker, excluding the NRA, won.
Look on my profile page and see if one of the stations has it.
I called the NRA Institute for Legislative Affairs last week and asked them to butt out of the case. The person I talked to didn't even know the name of the plaintiff's attorney, Alan Gura.
You can see hear the documents that the NRA filed, in a blatant attempt to torpedo the case: http://www.gurapossessky.com/parker.htm
Why in heaven did Idaho jump in on the pro-ban side, and then withdraw?
What was that about?
I can't imagine a better, clearer court decision to present to the SC than this DC decision. It flat out says the 2A is an individual right, and does a very good job of explaining why, and it's true. I'd like to see the matter decided on a positive note. Otherwise, the question may get presented by an anti-2A decision in the heat of emotion and political pressure following some crime spree, with Dems screaming for gun bans and registration.
Of course, to change it to include banning guns would require another American Revolution first -- that being the reason we went to war to begin with. I suspect the victors (that being us) would elect not to ban guns, but would be more clear on the issue.
In other words, an amendment to ban or to pass pro-ban regulations or laws on the right to own and carry arms would not even be in pursuance to the supreme law the way it stands. So even now, someone is going to have to account for their sins of ommission (failing to preserve our rights) one of these days.
be careful what you wish for - it also says laws forbiding open carry, outside your house, are a "reasonable restriction."
Eastbound wrote:
In other words, an amendment to ban or to pass pro-ban regulations or laws on the right to own and carry arms would not even be in pursuance to the supreme law the way it stands.
Quite true, -- amendments to ban/restrict rights would be unconstitutional.
The Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment make it clear that the peoples rights to life, liberty, or property are not to be infringed, abridged or denied, -- by any level of government in the USA.
Marshall made much the same point in Marbury, back in 1803:
"-- The question, whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land, is a question deeply interesting to the United States; but happily, not of an intricacy proportioned to its interest.
It seems only necessary to recognize certain principles, supposed to have been long and well established, to decide it.
That the people have an original right to establish, for their future govern-ment, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected.
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it, nor ought it, to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are deemed fundamental. And as the authority from which they proceed is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent. --"
Thus, - as we see, the fundamental principles of personal liberty in our Constitution are permanent.
Any amendments that violated those principles would be null, void, and repugnant.
What in heaven on you on about? An Amendment changes the contitution itself, and therefore cannot be repugnant to it.
Let us at least have internally consistent points, as opposed to DC in DC v. Parker, where DC argued that the militia is restricted to the NG, while at the same time DC law defines the militia as every able-bodied man, etc - BTW, the court made fun of the DC AG for being ignorant of the law in DC.
I LMAO.
Excellent summation, tpaine. Thanks.
If I may take the liberty of adding a clause to your ending -- '. . . and repugnant . . . ' --
". . . and when government, at any level fails to rectify attempts to abridge the aforementioned rights, it is the responsibility of the people to summarily 'prosecute' those guilty."
Only to the extent that the amendment is in harmony, in pursuance to the supreme law of the land, which, in fact, is the U.S. Constitution/Bill of Rights.
"Congress shall pass no law . . ."
The Constitution does not have a suicide clause.
OK, let me try a more polite response -
Any contract (And, indeed, the constitution is exactly that), may be modified by an amendment agreed to by all parties involved.
Clearly, the amendment supercedes clauses in the original contract to the contrary.
(doesen't this seem obvious to the casual observer?)
Seems to me also that was in pursuance to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Glad you brought that up. I am one of the parties involved. When it comes to my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, no one bargains for me or speaks for me or signs my name to any document which mitigates those rights.
This is not a 'democracy' where 51, or even 99 percent of the people can over-ride the rights of one percent.
...but you just said that an amendment to the constitution, can't be in conflict with the constitution.
(Can we say internally conflicting argument? If it does not change the constitution, why amend it?)
Let's be serious, patton, and stop playing word games. Amendments can enhance the Constitution and provide greater protections for people's rights, but they cannot be written to destroy what the Constitution was created for in the first place.
No, this is a representative republic, where about 1/10 of 1 percent of the population can obviate all your rights, forever.
No biggie. Arm yourself.
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.