Posted on 09/04/2001 6:14:22 PM PDT by vannrox
Signed, dazed and confused.
5.56mm
The second and tenth counts [intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'] 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...
United States v. Cruikshank 1876
In US v. Cruikshank, et al., the court found this about the second amendment: " . . .this is one of the amendments that has no effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." This was decided in 1875.
In Presser v. Illinois, the court repeated itself. The second amendment, " . . . is only a limitation upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the states."
It is fundamental to this argument to understand the nature of the Cruikshank prosecution. Cruikshank, et al. were white supremecist, murderous scum bags. Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman were two black men who were travelling to a political meeting to discuss a candidate. They armed themselves with shotguns, due to the times. Cruikshank and his gang accosted them. They determined Nelson and Tillman's purpose. They took away their guns. They beat them. They murdered them so they could not vote.
Can you imagine the righteous outrage that would surround such an act today? The fed's jumped into the prosecution under 14th amendment grounds. Cruikshank et al. denied Nelson and Tillman their right to vote, their first amendment right to assemble, and their second amendment right to keep and bear arms. Can you also imagine the federal government prosecuting people for denying someone their second amendment rights?
And the court held, ". . .this is one of the amendments that has no effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." In other words, the bill of rights acts only to restrict the actions of the federal government. It has no bearing on any other entity. Under this ruling, the KKK is just dandy.
Worse than that, this ruling dispenses with the states' obligations to follow the law. Under Cruikshank, and all the other second amendment decisions, they're saying that as long as the entity is the state police, not the feds, they may imprison you without cause (habeus corpus). They can torture you for interrogation and for punishment. They can force you to bear witness against yourself. They can invent laws to bar your conduct and convict you after the fact(ex post facto). They can taint your family and punish them for your crime(bill of attainder and corruption of blood).
All of these things are barred the federal government under the constitution. Until the 1930's ( I don't recall the decision) they were not applied to the state governments.
That's what those decisions say.
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.