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

To: blam; Amendment10; MadMax, the Grinning Reaper; Jack Hydrazine; Joe 6-pack; informavoracious; ...
Oakland today. America tomorrow. If Obama decides in a ‘national emergency’ under Martial Law that all firearms need to be turned over for ‘public security and safety’. Remember Katrina... Just yesterday some town in Alabama announced they want gun confisgation during any crisis (however that is defined). The crime threat in Oakland could be a walk in the park compared to what would happen to unprepared people going without a few days of food or water in some urban areas of the U.S.. And overworked, overwhelmed and undermanned LEOs in such possible scenarios.

Meanwhile, in different State houses in America. The Leftists are plotting to disarm the population.

And locally...the example mentioned above.

2/27/13

“City Wants Power To “Disarm Individuals” During Crisis (Guntersville, Alabama)”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2991692/posts

23 posted on 02/27/2013 8:26:53 AM PST by 444Flyer (Obama killed the Twinkie, but not the Terrorists in Benghazi. What's wrong with this picture?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies ]


To: 444Flyer; All
The fact that liberals ignore the Constitution aside, let's examine the 2nd Amendment in conjunction with the 14th Amendment.

Noting that the Bill of Rights (BoR), including 2A, originally didn't apply to the states, consider that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of 14A, had officially included 2A when he read the first eight amendments as examples of constitutonal statutes containing privileges and immunities which 14A applied to the states. See 2A in the middle column of the page linked to below from the post-Civil War congressional record.

Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session

And for those of you who haven't seen the following, the Supreme Court later clarified that the 2A was made not to give the right to bear arms, but to clarify that Congress cannot infringe on the natural right (my term) to use arms in self-defense against another citizen when necessary.

"The second and tenth counts are equally defective. 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 this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. 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, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the "powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police," "not surrendered or restrained" by the Constitution of the United States." --United States v. Cruikshank, 1875.

So the states now arguably have as much constitutional red tape as Congress does with respect to regulating arms.

On the other hand, noting that Bingham had also clarified that 14A did not take away state's rights, although I think that guns need be regulated to an extent with respect to age requirements and other uncommon common sense considerations, I believe that such laws should be left up to the states, not the federal government. After all, it's too easy for anti-gun rights liberals to abuse federal legislative powers to trash our natural right to self-defense.

In fact, consider a major 14A obstacle federal lawmakers who want to take away our gun rights. When Congress makes gun laws, 14A arguably requires Congress to make only laws which prevent the states from enforcing state gun laws which abridge our natural right to self defense.

25 posted on 02/27/2013 11:34:22 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

To: 444Flyer
I don't see kinfolk in Guntersville disarming the public if a major disaster would occur. I think LE would do well to allow the veterans and locals to remain armed. I'd hate to see what would happen if LE began gun confiscation in the suburban and rural areas. It would start out ugly and get uglier as the word spread.
26 posted on 02/27/2013 12:45:02 PM PST by vetvetdoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

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