Posted on 06/02/2004 12:44:36 PM PDT by neverdem
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Los Angeles Pierce College, Woodland Hills, California, having taught at Pierce College since 1975.
O’ Hear ye, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in their December decision that the Second Amendment of the Constitution was not adopted "to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
The left hails this courts decisions as decisive and correct, while the right sees the court as a bulwark to destroy our republican form of government and forging the links in chains of usurpation. Remember, this is the same federal court that declared the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and has a record of more decisions reversed than any other court.
Have these judges made a sound judicial decision or legislated from the bench? The answer is in our history, our Constitution and especially the Second Amendment, a part of our "Bill of Rights." Some may think that surely this is a trick question that only a judge can divine. However, I assure you that the answer is meant for the common man in jury to resolve.
Judge for yourself, the Second Amendment states: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Today’s media debates are often pro-gun and anti-gun advocacy matches. But reviewing the debates that confirmed our Constitution and our "Bill of Rights" we recognize that today’s debates are similar to those of 1787: Should we have a federal government that is overreaching and infringes on individual liberties or should the individual be protected and the federal government be limited?
Indeed I hear your question: Where can I find the answer to a limited or infringing government which in turn can resolve the debate on gun control and determine if the 9th Circuit Court gets an A or an F in its decision?
The answer is in two books, "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-Federalist Papers." One may obtain them at any quality bookstore, each at under $10.
Federalists sought a central federal government to assure a "more perfect union," with the benefits that an energetic government would bring in commerce and prestige much as England had. James Wilson, Supreme Court Justice and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, saw with particular clarity, strong government could as much serve the people when controlled by them as it could injure them when it was hostile.
Anti-federalists were skeptical of any new constitution and saw the federalist hopes as lust by ambitious men for a "splendid empire" where, in the time-honored way, "the people would be burdened with taxes, conscriptions, and campaigns." They saw the enlarged powers of any central government as familiar threats to the rights and liberties of the people.
Be not mistaken in this, Federalists understood the need to limit the powers of government having endured the long struggle to end the "tyranny" of kings and wanted insurance that government would be faithful to the people, stable, and filled with wisdom in its enactments.
As the debate over the new Constitution progressed, anti-federalist objections crystallized into specific proposals for amendments that would assure the new federal governments limited powers. In some state conventions, these amendments were insisted upon prior to their ratifying the Constitution. Their proposals being similar in nature were later included as the first ten amendments, which we call "The Bill of Rights."
Consider Virginia, in 1788, offered 20 amendments for consideration.
Its 17th states: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Similarly Pennsylvania, upon ratification, issued 14 recommended amendments and the 7th reads: "That people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state … and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers."
Considering our recorded history, one could reasonably ask: Did the 9th Circuit judges abrogate the history of our nation, ignore the grievances that compelled us to separate from England, discard the debates of the Federalists and Anti-federalists, legislate from the bench which is not their responsibility, and thus compel another re-writing of our natural history to justify their decree, relying on the general ignorance of the people to allow their decisions to stand? A simpler question is: What part of "shall not be infringed" is not understood?
Richard Skidmore is a professor at Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Ca. He may be contacted at rskidmor49@excite.com.
© Copyright 2003 by Magic City Morning Star
I saw it, and observed that it appears to be an unattributed quote. There is no attribution of who said it, in what context, or on what basis they deem this to be "apparent". I gave it all the consideration I deemed it worthy of.
OK. I'll make it simple. Did the first amendment always apply to the states? You know, the amendment that starts, "Congress shall make no law ..."
If it did, then why was it written precisely this way?
Yes it would be, that's for sure, no doubt about it. So? You got a point?
That you're a useful idiot who knowingly aids and abets liberal gun grabbers.
If the second amendment applies to the states, why didn't Congress write the 1968 GCA and 1994 AWB (and the Gun Free Schools Act) under it instead of the Commerce Clause? Can you answer that?
Because ever since the New Deal, the USSC pretty much rubber stamped anything that Congress claimed had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. And plenty of useful idiots defend that approach.
The main issue or your main issue?
I thought the main issue was the second amendment.
"Why do you want most of our BOR's to be 'unincorporated'?"
Actually, what I want is repeal of the 14th amendment. It goes against the Founding Father's intent in the original Constitution for independent states. I don't want the federal government defining my rights.
You are quite blind paulsen, if you can't see the simple reversal of motive you're applying above. Our individual rights cannot be constitutionally infringed upon by any level of government.
We here are arguing for our liberties. -- You are arguing that State & local governments can violate those rights.
Big difference indeed, and it quite specious of you to claim you don't understand.
How can a state be independent when the federal government can control anything it's citizens own or do that could be construed to be of some potential material interest to someone else?
No. I'm arguing that state and local governments can infringe on your RKBA unless their state constitution forbids it.
"We here are arguing for our liberties"
Ah, baloney. You're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You're telling the citizens of California and every other state that the second amendment protects them and their RKBA. And they're going to go down with the ship with that hollow promise ringing in their ears.
Their state constitution protects their RKBA, and there's nothing in the California state constitution to protect that right. The citizens need to write an amendment ... and soon.
But tpaine, the gun grabber, says "No, you don't need to do that. The second amendment protects you. I promise."
OK. I'll make it simple. Did the first amendment always apply to the states? You know, the amendment that starts, "Congress shall make no law ..." If it did, then why was it written precisely this way?
Yes, it did. -- It was written that way to assure the few States that still had 'official', state supported religions, -- that Congress would write no law to affect that arrangement. The peculiar wording was a political compromise, one that worked, as 'official state religions' rapidly died out. - The last gasp was in Utah, which was forced to abandon it in order to achieve statehood.
This has all been explained to you many times previously. -- Why do you pretend you are unable to understand?
But a lot of morality issues can be solved by just getting the federal government out of the first amendment.
That time is coming ... sooner and sooner .... you will know it has arrived
That doesn't have anything to do with the effect the substantial effects doctrine and aggregation principle have on the independence of the states.
And if the first amendment applied to the states as you say, then what about free speech? How was it that the states were allowed to restrict the freedom of the press, the freedom of assembly, and the freedom of speech until the early 1900's?
No, it doesn't. The states gave Congress the power to regulate commerce "among the several states", now didn't they? And for good reason.
Yes, they did. Not "potential commerce", or "anything that might substantially affect commerce", but "commerce". Not "any commerce", or "commerce in and among the several states", but "commerce among the several states". And for good reason.
The main issue or your main issue? I thought the main issue was the second amendment.
All right, --Why do you want the 2nd amendment to be 'unincorporated'? What is your agenda?
Actually, what I want is repeal of the 14th amendment. It goes against the Founding Father's intent in the original Constitution for independent states. I don't want the federal government defining my rights.
Amazing, you've finally admitted you are an anti-14th 'states rightist'. Thanks.
Are you sure you want a State to be able to define your rights, paulsen?
-- It hasn't worked very well here in Calif. - As a moral majority has defined assault weapons as 'evil' and prohibited them.
In fact, if all our rights are subject to such 'definitions', do we even have inalienable rights, paulsen?
I'm just hoping it is something my generation gets cleaned up so my daughters generation no longer has to worry about it.
I can understand why you wish to change the subject -- you're really not doing well with your second amendment arguments.
I can understand your desire to try and separate them, so that federal gun bans under the Commerce Clause don't appear to have anything to do with the Second Amendment, and your claims of a desire for independent states doesn't appear to be in conflict with your support for an omnipotent federal government.
Yep, aine, they can't take away your God-given unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Guns are another matter. You need an amendment.
"Amazing, you've finally admitted you are an anti-14th 'states rightist'. Thanks."
Then you've missed my posts where I said that RLC platform (less the drugs) pretty much describes me, huh?
You are quite blind paulsen, if you can't see the simple reversal of motive you're applying above. Our individual rights cannot be constitutionally infringed upon by any level of government.
We here are arguing for our liberties. -- You are arguing that State & local governments can violate those rights.
No. I'm arguing that state and local governments can infringe on your RKBA unless their state constitution forbids it.
Thanks for admitting exactly my point:
We here are arguing for our liberties.
Ah, baloney. You're re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic. You're telling the citizens of California and every other state that the second amendment protects them and their RKBA.
Indeed it does. At some point the USSC will be forced to admit that simple truth. - I find it truly weird that you hang around here, insisting that saying so is akin to a parlor game.
And they're going to go down with the ship with that hollow promise ringing in their ears. Their state constitution protects their RKBA, and there's nothing in the California state constitution to protect that right. The citizens need to write an amendment ... and soon.
It would be nice, but according to your 'states rights' theory it would be meaningless, and easily repealed by the next majority in power.
But tpaine, the gun grabber, says "No, you don't need to do that. The second amendment protects you. I promise."
Fantasy quote. You're getting frantic my boy. Calm 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.