Posted on 07/29/2012 5:03:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
The ONLY protection for the First Amendment is the Second Amendment.
Nuff said!
and a fairly good shot at getting 60 seats in the Senate...
The 14 Amendment changed all that. Now the Amendments are binding on the several states.
Yes, there should be no restrictions or background checks; if you are such a menace to society that you are not permitted the means to defend yourself/family, then you should be dead or in jail. Also the parolee thing is a red herring; you don't need "laws" applicable to the general populace to do this for parolee's, it is one of many conditions of release unique to such persons.
The fact that you have to join with other like minded citizens is proof positive that YOU do not have authority over anyone but you. On the other hand We the people....have much authority if we chose to exercise it.
Oh I know... it’s happened on more than one occasion
The Bill of Rights was not drawn up by the framers because it was not part of the original Constitution but consists of the first ten amendments adopted by the states. The Federalist Papers argued against a Bill of Rights as being unnecessary, but twelve amendments were proposed by the first Congress at James Madison's initiative in order to placate the opponents of ratification and thereby consolidate support for the Constitution.
Moreover, although the Bill of Rights could be raised as a defense to criminal charges and some other government actions, the practice of enforcing its guarantees by filing federal civil litigation as a plaintiff is a relatively recent development, with the legal foundation set only after the Civil War. Such litigation became common only in the 1960s.
One of the little appreciated ironies of American history is that in the Reconstruction era, in order to protect newly freed slaves in the former Confederacy, it was Republicans who proposed and adopted the Fourteenth Amendment and a federal law providing for an individual right to enforce the Bill of Rights as a plaintiff. These continue to provide the basis for virtually all civil suits in federal and state court that seek to advance claims under the Bill of Rights.
Through an abundance of such litigation, the Bill of Rights now reaches more deeply into American government and life than ever before. Liberals seem to be increasingly discomfited by this because, in recent years, conservatives have won important legal victories because we developed the organizations and legal talent to defend our rights in federal court. In doing so, conservatives are advancing our first principles as Americans and as the true heirs of revolutionaries -- which we are both proud to be.
If someone were to invent a high powered laser that could set a brushy hillside ablaze from a mile away then market it as a 'laser gun', I sincerely believe that the Federal government could regulate it.
“The 14 Amendment changed all that. Now the Amendments are binding on the several states.”
I have read the 14th ammedment and it says absoulty nonthing of the first 10 amedments to the United States Constitution nor nor the 9 which were actually incorperated.
The incorperation doctrin is a competely arbtary & made up imposition of the Federal Corts. It has no basis in the text of the 14th ammedment nor any other part of the Federal Constitution.
Indeed it was in fact rejected by the first such Federal court to review the issue. A cort composed of people most knowledgeable about the subject amazement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
It would not be for anther 50 years in 1925 that the Federal court would actually suddenly and miraculously “discover” the incorporation doctrine and then only selectively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
There is a name for that kind of discovery, lawlessness.
“The 14 Amendment changed all that. Now the Amendments are binding on the several states.”
I have read the 14th ammedment and it says absoulty nonthing of the first 10 amedments to the United States Constitution nor nor the parts of the 9 which were actually incorperated.
The incorperation doctrin is a competely arbtary & made up imposition of the Federal Corts. It has no basis in the text of the 14th ammedment nor any other part of the Federal Constitution.
Indeed it was in fact rejected by the first such Federal court to review the issue. A cort composed of people most knowledgeable about the subject amazement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank
It would not be for anther 50 years in 1925 that the Federal court would actually suddenly and miraculously “discover” the incorporation doctrine and then only selectively:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gitlow_v._New_York
There is a name for that kind of discovery, lawlessness.
You may wish to review what’s considered a “felony” before pursuing that question.
Allowing private ownership of cannons was a given. The Constitution’s “Letters of Marque” clause (Congress may grant permission to wage private war) presumes private ownership of battleships and cannons. Heavy arms were/are assumed a matter of state because of cost of purchase, maintenance, and operation beyond the financial ability of most citizens - not a granted monopoly granted the state.
There is a vast legal difference between punishing mere possession vs. holding accountable for consequences of [mis]use.
The concern that Scalia has abandoned the Conservative cause is nuts.
His “practical” interpretation of the Amendment addresses the case of the historically menacing head axe.
Scalia is brilliant in his understanding of the apparent. His comments on the matter of the 2nd Amendment are being taken completely out of context.
Shame on the author for hyping nonsense.
>> Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
The State angle is in a way irrelevant in the sense it cannot defy the essence and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. The issue concerns the extent of the 2nd Amendment.
I inferred from Scalia’s remarks that the Constitution does not grant limitless use of weapons for any purpose. His ironically use of the term “reasonable” is applicable and satisfies the concern of the right to bear arms. This is not, however, the Commie-Leftwing-Mofu gun-grabbing argument!
It was either in the C-SPAN or FNC interview where Scalia made reference to the menacing head axe, and the “reasonable” interest of the state to ban such displays. Regardless of the weapon, his point concerns the States’ “unrestrained” choice to manage abusive use of weapons. If he mentioned the term “guns”, it was for exhibit only. And of course, we understand that “unrestrained” means that which is not restrained; that is, the 2nd restrains the choices the States have to restrict weaponry.
Then Scalia is an idiot w/o knowledge of history:
1 -- Privateers; privately owned batleships.
2 -- There have been multiple court decisions [including at least one USSC] justifying private firearm regulations because the arms in question were not shown to the court to have valid militia value.
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.