Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Skinning Cats: Legal Means to Disarm the Second Amendment
Vanity | May 6, 2007 | Mark Edward Vande Pol

Posted on 05/06/2007 8:21:20 PM PDT by Carry_Okie

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last
It starts slow, but it makes its point.

There are lots of ways for to skin a cat, this is but one of them.

1 posted on 05/06/2007 8:21:23 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; archy; neverdem
My take on a get-around the gun-grabbers may take to invalidate Parker v. District of Columbia.
2 posted on 05/06/2007 8:22:43 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Private property as a concept is under enarly conatant assualt, the Government carves out exceptions to the idea all the time, and the justify under there idea that anyhting but building a building on the taken property is not a “taking”.

Teh moderates are planning on running on Environmental Protections this coming election, no surprise really as to people in large cities it is easy to support stealing property under color of law out in “Flyover Country”.


3 posted on 05/06/2007 8:30:08 PM PDT by padre35 (we are surrounded that simplifies things-Chesty Puller)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Yeah, we might be up for that revolution thing sooner than even I thought. . .


4 posted on 05/06/2007 8:30:58 PM PDT by Filo (Darwin was right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Absolutely terrifying. When you add to this the trend in the world nowdays for corporate mergers and also governmental mergers(the EU, nafta, etc), ever larger and more powerfull entities...I’m scared spitless what the world will look like in 50 years.


5 posted on 05/06/2007 8:38:02 PM PDT by mamelukesabre
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Filo

Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.
barbra ann


6 posted on 05/06/2007 8:46:42 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Well done. I never thought about the 2/3 present. The other thing to remember is Senators weren’t originally popularly elected. They were chosen by their state legislatures.


7 posted on 05/06/2007 8:48:56 PM PDT by PghBaldy (Reporter: Are you surprised? Nancy Pelosi: No. My eyes always look like this.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Joe Brower; EternalVigilance; Southack

All this is from an evil obsession with control that seeks to systematically empower despots to outlaw and seize all firearms so that they can impose a totalitarian regime upon a defenseless America.

Some prefer not granting final authority to the Citizens, but rather to the judges who ultimately serve at our pleasure and on our payroll.

It’s at OUR pleasure. It’s OUR payroll.

And our judicial recall/impeachment process, when necessary.


The greatest evil is not done in those sordid dens of evil that Dickens loved to paint but is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clear, carpeted, warmed, well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voices. — C. S. Lewis


8 posted on 05/06/2007 8:50:56 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Two-thirds of the senate present not two-thirds of the senate got my attention straight off.Pack of sneaky runts.


9 posted on 05/06/2007 8:54:36 PM PDT by HANG THE EXPENSE (Defeat liberalism, its the right thing to do for America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave; SierraWasp; dirtboy; AuntB; okie01; marsh2; backhoe; sasquatch; Dog Gone; snopercod; ..
Is this a ping or a bonk?
10 posted on 05/06/2007 9:19:26 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PghBaldy
The other thing to remember is Senators weren’t originally popularly elected. They were chosen by their state legislatures.

Correct. Effectively, treaties were to be ratified by the states.

11 posted on 05/06/2007 9:20:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie; Joe Brower; archy

I think we’re in a mess. I’m close to being fed up. I can’t believe all the nonsense that is happening. We’re supposed to have the world’s greatest deliberative body, the U.S. Senate! How does anyone debate with those who said we lost? Who lost to whom? I am fuming.


12 posted on 05/06/2007 9:20:49 PM PDT by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: imahawk
Pack of sneaky runts.

"I smell a rat." Immortal words uttered by Christian Statesman Patrick Henry when he refused his invitation to attend the US Constitutional Convention in 1787.

13 posted on 05/06/2007 9:24:31 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I think we’re in a mess.

It's up to us. It always has been.

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free -- Ronald Reagan
14 posted on 05/06/2007 9:28:46 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson; hedgetrimmer; LisaAnne; Sir Francis Dashwood; mvpel; Dan from Michigan; Amerigomag; ..
Shameless self-promotion bump.
15 posted on 05/06/2007 9:34:13 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Congress appears to represent everything that the people are for. But when it comes to a vote, rarely do they vote as they tell the people how they would vote.

Tell us what we want to hear. Stab us in the back.

congress is a bunch of overpaid, underworked wimps.


16 posted on 05/06/2007 9:38:57 PM PDT by o_zarkman44 (No Bull in 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
If we do win in the Supreme Court, don’t think for a second that the gun-grabbing thugs of the left will let the situation get away from them without a fight. The threat we face is unambiguous. The motives are obvious. The enemy is committed. If the Second Amendment is hosed by treaty, we won't get the chance to let it happen again.

But blue helmets make such wonderful aim points.

17 posted on 05/06/2007 10:02:08 PM PDT by El Gato ("The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution." -- Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
With credit to Joe Brower.

Here's my new flag.

It's GONE!!!

18 posted on 05/06/2007 10:07:40 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Filo

Yeah, we might be up for that revolution thing sooner than even I thought.”

Nice thought, but too late.

You couldn’t get three people together to plan a revolution without one of them being a snitch.


19 posted on 05/06/2007 10:11:09 PM PDT by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

bang


20 posted on 05/06/2007 10:22:48 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex
Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.

And Goliad, the first battle for Texas independence from Mexico.

21 posted on 05/06/2007 10:23:05 PM PDT by zeugma (MS Vista has detected your mouse has moved, Cancel or Allow?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: barb-tex

“Lest we forget, the Battle of Lexington-Concord was over Gun Control.”

I’d like to ask permission to use that some day for a tagline? Actually its so good, and I don’t see a copyright on it - I just might steal it anyway!


22 posted on 05/06/2007 10:25:58 PM PDT by geopyg (Don't wish for peace, pray for Victory.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

btt


23 posted on 05/06/2007 10:28:42 PM PDT by Cacique (quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat ( Islamia Delenda Est ))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The right men have by nature to protect themselves, when none else can protect them, can by no covenant be relinquished. (Thomas Hobbes)

A covenant not to defend myself from force, by force, is always void. (Thomas Hobbes)

24 posted on 05/06/2007 10:36:00 PM PDT by Sir Francis Dashwood (LET'S ROLL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
My take on a get-around the gun-grabbers may take to invalidate Parker v. District of Columbia.

There is another get-around, they could more easily shut off the sale of ammo, than come for our guns.

Buy more ammo, LOTS more!

25 posted on 05/06/2007 11:20:46 PM PDT by c-b 1 (Reporting from behind enemy lines, in occupied AZTLAN.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

The desire to rule over other men, to live off the labor of others, to be a elite, a royalty, never ceases. The serpents were at the beginning and always with us. The serpents names change, but the form is always the same.


26 posted on 05/07/2007 3:46:24 AM PDT by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Seven years on and the need to inform is still present.
Remember these oldies?
a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.
Our National Parks Now Belong to United Nations

And more on subject, don't forget controlling the ammo.
American Model United Nations International
We also believe in the importance of controlling ammunition for small arms and would like to this area approached as a possible solution to the problem. As the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, has said, "Small arms are ubiquitous, but they are useless without ammunition. We should consider how we might track, control or mark ammunition as one way of controlling the lethal effect of these weaponsÉ sometimes it is too late to stop the supply of the weapons themselves; but if you stop the supply of bullets, you stop the killing." We also wish to stress the utmost importance of increased transparency in the trafficking of small arms.

International Small Arms and Light Weapons Transfers: U.S. Policy
The United Nations’ definition of small arms are those weapons manufactured to military specifications and designed for use by one person. Light weapons, according to the UN definition, are those utilized by several individuals working together as a crew. Ammunition and explosives required for either small arms or light weapons are covered by the definition.

27 posted on 05/07/2007 4:38:56 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: philman_36
Remember these oldies?

Yup.

a package of 34 treaties, all of which were ratified by a show of hands -- no recorded vote.

It's linked in the article. :-)

28 posted on 05/07/2007 6:49:27 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Leisler
The desire to rule over other men, to live off the labor of others, to be a elite, a royalty, never ceases.

No kidding. It's just not common knowledge that the means were embedded in the Constitution from the beginning.

29 posted on 05/07/2007 6:51:09 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

bttt


30 posted on 05/07/2007 7:44:54 AM PDT by Avoiding_Sulla (I don't know if there are any good Democrats, but I do know there are some bad Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
It's just not common knowledge that the means were embedded in the Constitution from the beginning.

Great article; thank you.

The American Revolution was a civil war between the Royalists and small group from the Colonists, less than half at the start. As it seems from then, 1945, 1989, and other clashes between Freedom and Oppression -- Freedom won the battles, but Oppression never stopped the war. The Royalists may get knocked back a step, but they regroup and forge ahead anew, spewing disaffection and poverty all around them.

The Royalists always were and are Socialists, be they politicians, corporate leaders, Islamists, the MSM, ad nauseum. I fear for my Country.

31 posted on 05/07/2007 8:01:22 AM PDT by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
The problem is in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

“Senators present” not two-thirds of the full Senate. It’s the Constitution’s original Trojan Horse.

Methinks that it is time for the People to start pressuring Congress and the state legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would: 1) Make the approval of 2/3 of all Senators required to pass a treaty; and 2) make it a requirement that each and every treaty that comes before the full Senate be subjected to a recorded vote - separate from all other treaties.

This needs to be done on a 2-track system - first via Congress (i.e. the conventional way that Amendments are proposed) and second via the mechanism of calling for a Constitutional Convention. Congress generally won't move on Amendments unless they are highly popular ideas (like voting rights at age 18), or unless they are pressured to do so. This one isn't going to be highly popular, so we need to turn up the heat on our employees.

While we're at it, we need to clarify the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment, such that ONLY property being taken for direct public use (not destruction) like schools, bridges, tunnels, roads, military bases, etc. can be taken, even with compensation. To allow Kelo-type takings to benefit private businesses or to enhance property tax revenues at the expense of the present owner's property rights is utterly hideous, and we need to make the SOBs in Congress and in many of the states aware of who they are working for.

32 posted on 05/07/2007 8:01:49 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Sometimes you have to wonder what the heck is going on. We supposedly have a written contract with the government that guarantees that we as humans and citizens have the God-given right to defend ourselves and our property.

We have a 2nd Amendment that makes everything nice-nice, yet we can't have a wide variety of weapons and the ones we can have are priced through the roof.

And God forbid your wife should beat you to the phone after a rough night on the town, because then you'd never be able to defend yourself again.

In Third world hell holes that we call repressed everybody and his favorite goat has a fully automatic AK and the thing only costs about $300!

Something is off.

33 posted on 05/07/2007 8:20:53 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Methinks that it is time for the People to start pressuring Congress and the state legislatures to enact a Constitutional Amendment that would: 1) Make the approval of 2/3 of all Senators required to pass a treaty; and 2) make it a requirement that each and every treaty that comes before the full Senate be subjected to a recorded vote - separate from all other treaties.

Exactly what I've been advocating for years.

34 posted on 05/07/2007 9:46:11 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
While we're at it, we need to clarify the "takings" clause of the 5th Amendment, such that ONLY property being taken for direct public use (not destruction) like schools, bridges, tunnels, roads, military bases, etc. can be taken, even with compensation. To allow Kelo-type takings to benefit private businesses or to enhance property tax revenues at the expense of the present owner's property rights is utterly hideous, and we need to make the SOBs in Congress and in many of the states aware of who they are working for.

Although I agree with you in principle, I have a different take on that problem.

35 posted on 05/07/2007 9:48:50 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Amendments to the Constitution superseed any treaties.


36 posted on 05/07/2007 10:22:54 AM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90
Amendments to the Constitution superseed any treaties.

In theory, but not in practice. Read the article.

37 posted on 05/07/2007 10:28:48 AM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

If that’s the case, can the US Constitution (and the US) be destroyed by a single treaty?


38 posted on 05/07/2007 10:45:02 AM PDT by Thunder90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90
If that’s the case, can the US Constitution (and the US) be destroyed by a single treaty?

The United States exists, in part, because other governments acknowledge that it exists. That was accomplihsed by treaty. Those treaties pre-exist the Constitution. Nations surrender and are dissovled by treaty.

So in answer to your question, as far as I know, legally yes. The reality is up to the people.

39 posted on 05/07/2007 12:10:00 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
One that didn't turn out happily was the SS siege of the Warsaw Ghetto, the reason was the same. We should all take fair warning from that.
barbra ann
40 posted on 05/07/2007 1:57:13 PM PDT by barb-tex (Why replace the IRS with anything?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

And require premium compensation, like say 125% of the highest reasonable appraisal, as compensation for people having to leave a place they might not have chosen to leave, and a disincentive for governments to use condemnation unless the land is direly needed.


41 posted on 05/07/2007 6:07:22 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; NormsRevenge; Czar
You guys have seen most of the top half of the article, but the latter half is new research.
42 posted on 05/07/2007 6:41:37 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember a case back in the 1950’s where the supreme court ruled that a signed and ratified treaty can NOT supercede the constitution and is null and void if it attempts to.


43 posted on 05/07/2007 6:56:40 PM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

I’m no lawyer, but, I think that Article VI is clearly stating a hierarchy of laws and authority. The Constitution trumps Federal laws, which trump treaties, which trump State constitutions and laws. I think that proof of treaties’ inferiority to Federal law can be shown by the fact that no Indian tribe, AFAIK, has ever been able to recover damages when Congress abrogates a treaty. (They’ve had to make any recoveries the good, ol’ fashioned way: By bribing Congress!) If your theory were true, the Senate and the President could conspire to amend the Constitution by entering into convenient treaties with any banana republic wanting a little cash.


44 posted on 05/07/2007 7:07:36 PM PDT by Redcloak (The 2nd Amendment isn't about sporting goods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
This little article was meant to alarm you...

And you accomplished that--very well.

Alarmed and sickened at the same time.

45 posted on 05/07/2007 7:13:25 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Redcloak
The Constitution trumps Federal laws, which trump treaties,

No treaty has ever been trumped by the Constitution in the Supreme Court. If the example provided in the Convention on Nature Protection isn't enough, I don't know what is.

46 posted on 05/07/2007 8:23:38 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: apillar
Maybe someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I seem to remember a case back in the 1950’s where the supreme court ruled that a signed and ratified treaty can NOT supercede the constitution and is null and void if it attempts to.

In seven years discussing this on FR, I've never seen anyone cite such a case, and believe me, there has been occasion.

47 posted on 05/07/2007 8:24:41 PM PDT by Carry_Okie (Duncan Hunter for President)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Thanks!!!

Wake up America!


48 posted on 05/08/2007 8:03:13 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking
And require premium compensation, like say 125% of the highest reasonable appraisal, as compensation for people having to leave a place they might not have chosen to leave, and a disincentive for governments to use condemnation unless the land is direly needed.

Great concept - but how about 150%? Give government a real disincentive to take private property.

49 posted on 05/08/2007 8:41:50 AM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
I suppose if we operate under the supposition (and the idiots in Congress may very well be) that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were conferred upon the people by the government; then yes I'd agree, that a treaty could superceed them.

However, those rights enumerated were in fact guarantees.

Otherwise a treaty could invalidate the right to free speech along with all the others.

Of course such matters would not prevent them from trying.

50 posted on 05/08/2007 9:39:15 AM PDT by AFreeBird (Will NOT vote for Rudy. <--- notice the period)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-132 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson