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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2264550/posts?page=226#226
My intention was simply to correct what I saw as a misstatement of fact, your "no state uses a Grand Jury." Rather than just assert that that statement of fact was incorrect (and I freely acknowledge that in context you may have meant it as an incorrect and/or sarcastic statement), I supplied a link to substantiate the correction.
That deals with things the fed can do but the state can not.
My question is, if the constitution protects a particular right of the individual, say, free speech, does the authority of the constitution (protection of that individual right) extend only to the federal government, thereby allowing individual state governments to limit the same individual freedom?
“It’s not a right, it’s not even the source the right. It’s a restriction on federal powers.”
Your statement that the 2nd Amendment is not a right is complete BS. For many years, the left and right have argued over whether it is collective or individual right. That is the soul of the argument. Around 99% of those on FR correctly believe it is an individual right. Even the lowest of leftist scum would acknowledge that it is a right, albeit a collective right that they can restrict. Since according to your logic I have no “RIGHT” to bear arms, yours’ seems a thinly veiled attempt to create new avenues for the left to attack the 2nd Amendment. I even see where you have called folks on here as “leftist” and “against the constitution” when all those you criticize believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right that cannot be taken away by the states. Do us a favor, either start taking your meds or get the hell out of here.
My statement “Right, because no states use a Grand Jury. Nice head shot.” was heavy on sarcasm. I absolutely do know that states use Grand Juries.
Sorry for any confusion.
Keep dancing...
Some rights have been "incorporated" and some have not. In the case of "incorporated" free speech, a town could once place a crêche in the town square prior and have a prayer to Christ at its high school graduation, prior to the Constitution being modified from the bench. Now such expressions can be silenced by order of a federal court district judge.
Which were subsequently rewritten and revised.
Really? Please clarify the differences between the Amendments proposed by Congress to the States, 1789 September 25 and the Bill of Rights as ratified by the states (apart from the fact that articles 1 and 2 were not ratified as part of the BOR).
That's a surprisingly difficult question to answer properly. In some ways, yes, in others, no. I quoted from Presser above, and will repeat because you seem to have scrolled past it.
I am also adding the part that the Circuit Courts cherry pick, without providing full context, in order to [wrongly] find the states may prohibit keep and bear arms under the authority of Presser.
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that [the second] amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. ...It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the [second amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the [law requiring a permit to conduct an armed public parade] do not have this effect.
The entire discussion in Presser, of the RKBA, is there because Presser argued that the first and/or second amendment embody a federal right to conduct an armed military parade in a public place without a local permit. The Supreme Court, in Presser, also addressed the first amendment, and it is similarly illuminating as to the extend and LIMIT of state power in that regard, and also placing the 1st amendment out of sight.
The right preexisted the restriction. Did you think that the American Revolution was fought with sticks and stones?
Keep falling on your face.
Haven’t yet, but who knows. The day isn’t over yet...
Apparently not. It won’t be the first time the SCOTUS has amended itself...
If you weren’t the proverbial turd in the punchbowl, this thread would have died a long time ago. I would like a vote as too how many on FR think the 2nd Amendment is a right. If the numbers are over 90% will you promise to crawl back into your hole.
Be sure to demand a Grand Jury for a traffic ticket. Bailiffs love a good laugh.
Getting the law back in-line with “shall not be infringed” isn’t “altering” you blithering idiot...
The reincarnation of Robert Paulsen. Sounds just like Bobby.
Yeah, let's vote to determine what the intent of the Framers was. Very Obama of ya.
No where, except in your fevered little mind, does it require Judicial review and opinion to get it to apply as written.
So I (or someone like me) went back in time and surreptitiously changed the words without the Framers' knowlege, giving the appearance that they chose distinctly different words in some cases from the words they chose in others. Dang, I wish I could find that time machine so I could go back and invest some startup capital in Microsoft, and Yahoo, and Google, not to mention short-selling GM and Citigroup.
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.