Posted on 11/21/2001 8:11:44 AM PST by Dan from Michigan
http://www.mcrgo.org/forums/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5418&FORUM_ID=4&CAT_ID=2&Topic_Title=Ferndale+gun+ban&Forum_Title=General+Discussion
Jlevis (Message Boards) - The city council in Ferndale has passed a ban on possesing any weapon in a city owned building. If you live in that city you need to write the council and mayor expressing your displeasure at this.
Ross Dykman, exec director -
I have just sent them a letter advising them that their ban is most likely illegal per Michigan law and promising further action if they don't repeal it or make any effort at enforcing it.
Who's up for a trip to the next ferndale City Council meeting? I'd love an overflow crowd of law-abiding people who are upset that they can no longer use the library or access city services without surrendering their constitutional right to self-defense.
Next meeting is Monday, November 26th at 7:30 in the basement of City Hall.
Ferndale city hall is located at 300 East Nine Mile Road Ferndale, Michigan 48220.
If Ferndale gets this through, it means that OTHER CITIES will follow. That's why this is important. Politics is local.
Here in Miami-Dade County, we are already prohibited from carrying in all local government buildings (that is, unless you serve on the County Commission). Private businesses, however, don't seem to have this problem. :-)
Go Get 'em Dan!
Ferndale however is VERY liberal and in the middle of Gilda JAcob's district I believe. Jacobs is the number one ASD'er(Anti-Self Defense) in the state legislature.
Bush 2970, 31%
Gore 6107, 64%
Nader 420, 4%
But even liberals do not like COURT CHALLENGES.
We also pay the highest property taxes in Oakland county. Oakland county is one of the richest counties in the country, and Ferndale isn't close to being the richest city in the county.
Ferndale does have one of the best police forces in the state, though.
The law is mere harrasment IMHO........ Good luck in your efforts Dan.... and Stay Safe !
IN OTHER WORDS: WHO THE HECK WOULD BE WILLING TO VOLUNTEER FOR, LET ALONE ACTIVELY PROTECT, CITY AND GOVERNMENT ORGS AND BUILDINGS IF THOSE ORGS REFUSE THAT WE PROTECT OURSELVES AND VOLUNTEERED FOR OURSELVES?
WHAT COMES AROUND GOES AROUND.
That said, our state has a preemption law, and that's what we'll be using if need be. Cities can't override state gun laws.(Law since 1990). We also have a friendly state Supreme Court.
Regards
Hardly - being that you yourself say Ferndale is one of the most-liberal suburbs there!
It's like all those few "college towns" during the Reagan years that declared themselves "nuclear-free zones"; the idea never spread past the very-few leftmost places that started it.
I wrote an article on free republic a while ago about this. see below
--------------
The deliberate misinterpretation of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment is easily exposed through a simple exercise of English.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
First who is the intended target of the 2nd Amendment that is to obey the 2nd Amendment?
- the answer is everyone and that includes the government (federal, state and local).
Second, what is the verb in the 2nd Amendment that commands the actions of the target?
-The answer: there is only one verb which is the verb phrase - "shall not be infringed".
Third, what is the subject of the sentence that receives or benefits from the action of the verb?
-There are two subjects: the clause "well regulated militia" and the noun clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Those two subjects are then not to be infringed.
The obvious English interpetation of the 2nd amendment then is: the target (Government and everyone else)is commanded not to infringe on the militia and is commanded not to infringe on the people's rights to own and bear guns.
Logically then it is completely illogical and nonsensical to think that the government can regulate the Militia when the second amendment commands the government NOT to infringe on the Militia. This should always be the counter-argument for anyone that says that the government has the right to regulate the militia. I have never heard anyone - the NRA, GOA, any TV show or radio - use this argument but it is as clear as day. After all the Bill of Rights and the Constitution was primarily written for the people and only secondly for the Lawyers and judges and the Supreme Court.
Also the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment is not a verb. So the second amendment is not saying the government or anyone has the right to regulate the militia but instead is directing, by the real VERB of the Sentence, that the Militia shall not be infringed.
This then leaves open the question - how is it that a militia cannot be infringed by anyone?
- The answer can only be because the militia is a private organization separate from any government. Or in other words the militia is the people acting outside of the government, and the government is directed by the second amendment to not infringe on these actvities of the people or militia.
Another question about the English of the second amendment can then be - then what does "well regulated" mean?
-"Well regulated" back in the times of the colonies meant to practice and or be well-practiced. Intepreting well-regulated correctly requires consistency with the context of the second amendment itself and also with the context of the Bill of Rights in its entirety. This contextual consistency leaves the correct interpretation that is - that not only shall the militia not be infringed, but also the practicing(training, exercises, firing drills, shooting practice, marching with guns, tactical drills, etc)of the militia shall not be infinged; or a well-practiced/well-regulated militia shall not be infringed!
And for anyone that does not know who still would ask - what is the context of the Bill of Rights?
- The answer is that context is a command of prohibition against the Government not to infringe on these listed rights of the people. So again in the context of the Bill of Rights it is again nonsensical to state that the Bill of Rights or the Second Amendment gives the Government the Constitutional power to restrict gun rights or the militia when the Bill of Rights is actuially the opposite of that and is a commanding list of prohibitions against the Government.
And an important side note - I believe the second amendment is the only part of the Constitution where the Constitution's authors had written into the Constitution the reason WHY the amendment is included(but I would be gladly corrected on this)
That reason they wrote
"being necessary to the security of a free state"
One should take note of this as an extra emphasized message that the Founding Father's had sent to us about the importance of being armed. A message made permament as part of the Constitution so as there to be no doubt that they intended that all future generations would understand that this right to be armed shall be defended and protected at all costs!!!!!
I dare say that this is strong evidence that they considered the second amendment then the most important of all rights of the people.
Dobbyman
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.