Posted on 06/04/2009 5:59:45 AM PDT by epow
On Wednesday, June 3, the National Rifle Association filed a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of NRA v. Chicago. The NRA strongly disagrees with yesterday's decision issued by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, holding that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty-so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the quality alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an unarmed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." - Thomas Jefferson, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764
"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." - Noah Webster, An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
The difficulties which present themselves are on one side almost sufficient to dismay the most sanguine, whilst on the other side the most timid are compelled to encounter them by the mortal diseases of the existing constitution. These diseases need not be pointed out to you who so well understand them. Suffice it to say that they are at present marked by symptoms which are truly alarming, which have tainted the faith of the most orthodox republicans, and which challenge from the votaries of liberty every concession in favor of stable Government not infringing fundamental principles, as the only security against an opposite extreme of our present situation. I think myself that it will be expedient in the first place to lay the foundation of the new system in such a ratification by the people themselves of the several States as will render it clearly paramount to their Legislative authorities. 2dly. Over & above the positive power of regulating trade and sundry other matters in which uniformity is proper, to arm the federal head with a negative in all cases whatsoever on the local Legislatures. Without this defensive power experience and reflection have satisfied me that however ample the federal powers may be made, or however Clearly their boundaries may be delineated, on paper, they will be easily and continually baffled by the Legislative sovereignties of the States. The effects of this provision would be not only to guard the national rights and interests against invasion, but also to restrain the States from thwarting and molesting each other, and even from oppressing the minority within themselves by papermoney and other unrighteous measures which favor the interest of the majority. - James Madison to Thomas Jefferson. Letters of Delegates to Congress: Volume 24 November 6, 1786-February 29, 1788
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin, October 7, 1789
Don't go away mad little gun-hater... Just go away.
At the time the Bill of Rights was incorporated by a constitutional convention, Article VI of the Constition was already in effect. Thus, the states knew that anything incorporated into the Constitution via amendment would also be binding on the states unless the language of the article clearly identified it as a restriction on the federal government. Apparently the SCOTUS decision you have been citing chose to ignore this fact.
Article 11 of the bill of rights (9th amendment) asserted that rights not enumerated were not denied or disparaged, and were retained by the people (not by the states but by the people).
Article 12 of the bill of rights (10th amendment) reserves to the states and the people any powers not granted to the federal government AND not denied to the states by the constitution.
Article 3 of the bill of rights (1st amendment) prohibits Congress from passing laws respecting religion, restricting speech, restricting freedom of the press and of assembly, etc. (If the intent of the overall bill of rights was entirely to limit the powers of the central government with no consideration for asserting basic rights that could not be infringed by any level of government, then why would this article specifically say Congress but not others?) Article 4 (2nd amendment) asserts the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. When this article was ratified it became a part of the Constitution. As such, it is the supreme law of the land (the provisions of any state constitution to the contrary notwithstanding). "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed". Since the states did not choose to word this article in a way that reserved to themselves the power to infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any inference that the framers intended this restriction to be a restriction only on the federal government ignores the clear meaning of the words of both the amenement and the rest of the constitution. The Supreme Court decision in 1833 (it seems there were some other decisions by SCOTUS around that time that aren't widely considered very good stare decisis anymore if I recall correctly) chose to ignore this.
Three quotes made when the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment didn’t exist. How idiotically entertaining.
No, they're forcing the Supreme court to get off it's a$$ and finally rule on incorporation of the second. they've been ducking this issue since 1939 and it's TIME.
Either the second gets incorporated or the USA takes a HUGE step towards dissolution / civil war.
Wait, I thought only you could know the framers intent?
Looks like you were wrong.
But we already knew that.
But they were not idiots and so did not subscribe to your facile rationalization.
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the Constitutions of the several States by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the General Government -- not against those of the local governments.
The problem is the people. They don't think THEY have any right other than what their betters give them; and they won't hold their government to account, even when their government and courts are lying to their faces. In fact, most of them are too stupid to even notice that the government and courts are lying to their faces. Their so-called advocates, e.g., the NRA, side with the government in promulgating the big lie.
What next? We need to post without using words?
What is it about the water in Commifornia that makes the brains in people like you go to complete mush?
The second gets incorporated then the USA takes a HUGE step towards dissolution. Just like the 1st Amendment has fared in the hands of the federal judiciary and rule from the bench.
Original intent of the Constitution:
to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare,
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity
Jefferson and Madison were opining on the meaning of an Amendment to the Constitution that hadn't been ratified, debated or even written yet? Fascinating.
The Second didn’t NEED incorporation. Maybe you need to go back and re-read the Constitution. Let us know which Clause contains this “incorporation” mandate before Amendments apply via Art 6 para 2.
None of them said the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states, beggar of questions.
That chipping away has been steady since 1915 or so. At this point, SCOTUS is defending 70 or so years of unconstitutional law, and all the prosecutions and deaths that have been perpetrated using long-standing unconstitutional law. "Saving face" writ large.
Good, because it isn't incorporated.
Nice foot shot.
States laws aren't contrary to restrictions on the federal government. Another nice foot shot.
Preamble
Congress OF THE United States begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
It's already "incorporated". The States ratified it and so did Congress. It included a clause making it PART of the Constitution. This means "shall not be infringed" is part of the "Supreme Law of the Land" the "Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding".
Jeeze Roscoe... Haven't we been over all this enough before?
Art 6 Para 2 says the Second supersedes State law.
I was paraphrasing to be brief and make the point.
Note that Mojave doesn’t actually refute what I said, but only tried bait me into a little war of juvenile name calling and personal attacks.
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.