Posted on 03/24/2009 6:11:24 AM PDT by jmaroneps37
Which is why Americans should ignore the anti-Heller, unconstitutional laws in these states/cities.
Andrew Jackson once said:”Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
Truth is, NO ONE is bound by the courts to do anything! People abide by rulings to maintain order. Once anyone disregards the courts, we are all free to do likewise.
We have seen the Constitution trampled underfoot by the dukes, earls and assorted nobility in Versailles on the Potomac.
It is time to right the wrongs. If not now, when? If not here, where? If not you and I, who?
To the wannabe dictators of the Dem Party, the rule of law means nothing. Constitution means nothing. Laws are only for their victims.
For decades, the radical leftist Dem Party has lifted up various tyrants around the world as their heroes. Want to guess why? (clue: not rocket science)
Are you sure that’s a Constitutional right?? We may need to amend it.
Game over. Nice no longer. The line drawn has been crossed. It was good living in a mostly free country, not to mention serving in our military. Now we enter the troubled times and have to fight to try and regain what has been lost. The ‘snick’ you heard was the first round being chambered.
Mayor Daley to Supremes: To Hell with Heller!!!
OK, you just forced my drink back up thru my nose...
You are hearby ordered to only one photobucketing post per day for a week...
Make it count Tonto!
[geesh, what a mess!] ;-)
The Heller decision pretty much rules out that thinking. Heller makes plain that the protection of the Second Amendment is not limited to militia purposes.
The question will revolve around whether the intentions of those who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment included protecting the right of freed slaves to keep and bear arms to protect themselves. The timing of the passage of the Fourteenth, immediately after the Thirteenth, which ended slavery, is not just an historical coincidence. The Supreme Court, as it is presently constituted, will recognize that. No state will retain the power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
As for the issue as a whole...
Did we really believe this was going to force the gun control supporters into submission???
I never believed it would, and for a time I believed that in the way the question of Heller was presented to the SCOTUS, I thought it very well could have gone against us...
So, what do we do about the wayward jurisdictions not adhering to the SCOTUS decision???
In about 20 months, we get to make a change...I really, really hope that there is a conservative tsunami at the polls in November 2010...And even better, this very November in our local elections...Start sending a few politicians onto the street...
Remember, I really have no use at all for any elected official or citizen of this country that doesn’t trust me with a gun...Sure, you can believe what you want, and I’ll defend that right to speak your mind on the matter, but when you actually do something that violates my right to keep and bear arms as I see fit...We may have a slight problem...
...good point...
But when they win, it is instantly implemented and settled for all time. Roe vs Wade for instance. Bam, instant law, instant implementation, instant universalism.
That was not my point. The point was that the jurisdiction for deciding what are or are not legitimate self defense versus raising a private army was left to the States to assure that said militias were "well regulated." It is a matter of where jurisdictional powers lie.
As to the the drafters of the 14th, they had a rather narrower agenda having NOTHING to do with civil rights.
“Bare arms”....drives me almost as nuts as when I see someone say that they have a “12 guage shotgun”....
:)
The Heller decision is a BAD thing. The court says you have the right to bear arms “BUT”... If there’s a “but”, then there’s no right. The court says that you have the right to defend yourself “in the home”. Apparently that right does not extend past your own four walls. The court says that there cannot be a total ban on handguns...it doesn’t say there can’t be bans on certain types of handguns...or ammunition...or.... This decision throws the door WIDE open for the socialists to further ban guns. “Reasonable gun control”.....
Now, I look at the second amendment differently. First of all, remember that the Bill of Rights was demanded by those who OPPOSED the Constitution, as a hedge against the Constitition!! The Constitution gives full control over the militia to Congress. This was a huge sticking point. If Congress has control of the militia, what do the States have to defend themselves against a tyrannical central government? The Congress may or may not even arm or train a militia. The Second amendment was written to fix this egregious error.
The States have been VERY lax in their duties.
The individual right to bear arms is, I think, only obliquely found in the second amendment. That the Founders wanted individuals armed is beyond question...so much so that they did not see the necessity to specifically state so...unfortunately. Besides, the Ninth and Tenth amendments technically are sufficient to cover the individual right to bear arms, but who ever talks about these? One of the problems I have with the Constition and the Bill of Rights is that it is too vague. While “we” may know what it means, others don’t. I think things like this should be PAINFULLY explicit. No vagaries...which will be taken advantage of by the unscrupulous.
The Second Amendment (or the ninth, or the tenth) does not guarantee your right to bear arms. What does? YOU, bearing arms.
I'm not sure about that - all such a ruling would say is that the 2nd does not apply to the states. It wouldn't say that no federal guns law apply within the states. You couldn't, for example, have Texas pass a law allowing people to own brand new full autos without any paperwork...though I'd like that.
Why is it the 2nd amend is the only right in the bill of rights that is not protected in every state in America?
Which state or states in America is racism still allowed under the old separate but equals laws?
You know keep them people away from my people laws.
Why do some states still have gun bans after this court case?
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.