Posted on 01/06/2009 11:20:52 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
2nd Amendment critics are 'ready to run wild'
A perfect storm is developing for Second Amendment opponents that could allow President-elect Barack Obama's choice for attorney general – Eric Holder – to "ban guns at will" despite the 2008 affirmation from the U.S. Supreme Court that U.S. citizens have a right to bear arms.
The situation was described with alarm by Alan Korwin, author of Gun Laws of America, in a recent commentary.
He cited Holder's known support for gun bans – the former Clinton administration official endorsed the District of Columbia's complete ban on functional guns in residents' homes before it was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And Korwin pointed to overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress as well as Obama's known support for gun restrictions and his presence in the Oval Office.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Well I guess we will see if they really uphold the constitution. :)
Let's hope that the SC spends a lot of time overturning Holder's decisions for the next four years.
bans are words on paper... The dems would then have to “enforce” an all out ban. Acting offended when Americans refuse to be disarmed will not satisfy that end.
Now we will see if WE are willing to uphold the constitution!
Liberals have never gotten the “shall not be infringed” part of the Second Amendment.
If anything, the Bill of Rights lets states ban firearms if they choose to do so.
They don't get the free exercise of religion portions either. Liberals are much more comfortable with the parts they can interpret to mean government enslaving the population.
Keep reminding your Congressmen that they come up for re-election every TWO years. If they do not listen, REPLACE THEM, run yourself or back someone who supports the Constitution.
What???
The Bill of Rights was put in place to bestow rights onto citizens - guaranteeing that government can't usurp certain inalienable rights. The BOR was written SPECIFICALLY to NOT allow states to infringe on these rights, not the least of which is the right to bear arms.
I hope I'm miss-reading your post. If so, I apologize.
He's not, he's just putting people in positions that will.
Right kind of like....
Read my lips, no new taxes.
Is that a trick question?
The last thing Barack Obama and his minions wants to do is uphold the Constitution. To him, and his ilk, the Constitution is nothing more than an impediment to creating a society that they see as "fair" and "equitable".
I would love to know in Obama's seven or eight years of public service if the words "founding father's" have ever crossed his lips. My guess would be no. His brand of Constitutional law isn't about protecting what the Revolutionary War provided, but creating something new and contemporary to satisfy their Marxist and Socialistic ideals.
We’ll see if Holder can get confirmed. He and Carol Browner need to be filibustered.
Well this is one cop that won’t be rounding up people’s firearms....no matter what Eric Holder, a future S.C., or my Mayor says....
I had a real world job before and I can get a real job again.
Wrong. The wording of the 2nd is not like the wording of the 1st. The 1st says "Congress shall make no law..." which is specifically a ban on Congress. The 2nd says "...shall not be infringed," which is absolute. Either it applies to ALL rule makers or it is meaningless. it does not say "Congress shall not infringe..." or "city commissions shall not infringe." It says "...SHALL NOT BE infringed." I used to think that the right to property gives the owner of a business the right to ban guns in his establishment but now I am sure it does not do even that. "Shall not be infringed" allows for no exceptions at all.
Oh I was being sarcastic. I think we will have to secure our rights but what means we will. In the end the government will not protect you or your rights. It will sacrifice you and me in order to protect itself.
Regards...
>>>If anything, the Bill of Rights lets states ban firearms if they choose to do so.<<<
The 2nd Amendment says nothing about states or the congress. It says the RKBA shall not be infringed, period.
sure is a lot of media-chum in the waters lately
I believe the end of that quote was something along the lines of 'and even if I wanted to, I don't have the votes YET.'
The refutation in your argument implies that states can clamp down on free speech, but Congress cannot.
</devil's advocate>
Now you're starting to sound like the late unlamented Robert Paulsen.
No. It does not. The Second Amendment clearly forbids abridging the rights of citizens to bear arms and the recent SCOTUS decision upholds it.
The Federal Government has no right to issue a blanket ban on all firearms, all people have a God-given right to defend themselves, and any governmental actions to disarm citizens in such a manner should be opposed by whatever means are necessary to do so.
“If anything, the Bill of Rights lets states ban firearms if they choose to do so.”
The SCOTUS has not ruled on whether the 2nd Amendment is Incorporated against the States by the 14th amendment.
In a newly filed lawsuit in federal court in Chicago,two gun rights organizations and four individuals asked that the Second Amendment be extended to block strict gun laws at the state and local level. “The Second Amendment right,” the complaint contended, “is incorporated as against the states and their political subdivisions pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
The case, McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al. (District docket 08-3645), was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago to challenge a city ordinance that bars registration of handguns with only a few exceptions, and that limits registration of other guns. The case was assigned to Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur.
Article Source: scotusblog.com
This Issue may soon be resolved.
Civil War II.
“Now we will see if WE are willing to uphold the constitution!”
That’s a fact. Love your tagline, by the way.
“If anything, the Bill of Rights lets states ban firearms if they choose to do so.”
The 14th Amendment took away that “allowance.”
“The Bill of Rights was put in place to bestow rights onto citizens....”
No! No! No! The BOR does not BESTOW rights to the people, rather, it tells the government what it can’t do to the people’s already existing rights. A goverrnment that has the power to “bestow” rights has the power to take away rights.
“The BOR was written SPECIFICALLY to NOT allow states to infringe on these rights.”
Again, no. The BOR primarily dealt with restrictions on the federal government, not the states. That’s another reason the 14th Amendment was ratified, in order to hold the states to the same restrictions.
1. The BOR does not bestow rights. Inalienable rights are God given.
2. The BOR was originally written to restrict those powers granted to the Federal Government by the States and the People.
3. James Madison was initially opposed to the BOR because he thought that such a List would be construed to be exhaustive; hence the 10th amendment.
4. The Constitution was never construed to limit the powers of the States except where they were explicitly limited. That's why there was such an arguement over secession.
5. It was the Civil War amendments that extended the BOR to the States.
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
6. How those 10 amendments apply to the states is still hotly debated. The Heller decision skirted this issue because D.C. is administered by Congress.
Yeah Right
This means that the 1911, the Ruger Mark II, Mossberg shotguns or any other weapon _ever_ used by the gov't is now banned to the public. This is a defacto ban on just about every weapon ever made.
Money quote of the mornin...it is hungry indeed...
If Eric Pol Pot Junior tries that, he'll soon see the true purpose of the second amendment.
I'm thinking most libs have learned their lesson from past attempts to ban firearms. Additionally, far too much historical data is now available that proves they are dead wrong on the issue.
I just hope the hysteria dies down soon so firearm and ammo prices drop. Have you seen the cost of .223 and .45 ammo ?
Yes, but all those "principled conservatives" really sent us all a message!
Im bettin the market will bottom out and Ill get some killer deals when they ink a new one...
Ping.
What Bush 41 actually meant was no new Texas.
Yes and it is causing me to go broke!
LLS
Assuredly a line will be drawn in the sand. I think those lofty politicians might take a second look at just how many people are stocking up on guns/ammo. Pretty impressive increase in sales for sure. I don’t think gun owning Americans are or ever will be willing to relinquish their firearms. Could get pretty messy but then perhaps that’s why the Pontus-Obamus wants a 250 thousand standing army.
The 94 AWB was clearly Unconstitutional. It was a Federal Ban on a common armament.
Tin-foil hat time! More from Whirled Nuts Daily.
This just can’t be true, if it were the conservative radio talk shows woukd be talking about it as well as the leaders of the republican party.
You know the same people that are dead silent on OZama’s COLB issue.
So there isn’t any reason to be concerned. Besides if you don’t care where he was born, why care if they take away firearms.
We are after all is said and done headed for a very violent confrontation between working taxpayers and our ruling elite. Some of whom are republicans and most are democrats.
As I watch the world change and brace myself for the road ahead, I'm pissed at the demonrats, of course, but I find myself having the most anger at the idiot republicans who, for some inexplicable reason, turned into free spending, big government demonrats and then thought they should be reelected.
Those idiots, G.W. Bush included, spent away their claim to fiscal responsibility, one of the better arguments to vote Republican. I expect demonrats to be demonrats, that's why I don't vote for them...oh wait, I guess I did and didn't know it.
We are now left to hope that the dims don't do too much damage and that the republicans can find both a spine and a cogent philosophy. Sounds like yet another good time for prayer.
40 million American gun owners say “bring it on” !
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.