Posted on 09/20/2002 6:31:53 AM PDT by The Unnamed Chick
The right of individuals to keep and bear arms may have some validity on the federal level, but states have a right to regulate and ban firearm ownership among the people, says California Attorney General Bill Lockyer.
In a letter sent earlier this month to David Codrea, co-founder of Citizens of America, a California-based gun-rights organization, Lockyer said that while his duty is to enforce the laws of his state and the nation, "the responsibilities of my office do not permit me to independently interpret the state and federal Constitutions or the statutes written pursuant to those Constitutions."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29009
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Illogical.
The BOR's only mentioned the federal congress in the 1st, -- all other amendments were written as general edicts that were binding on the states as well as the federal govermment. Indeed, one argument made before ratification was that the BOR's would lay a general foundation for basic individual rights in ALL states, new & existing.
States don't derive their powers from the United States Constitution, the Constitution is their delegation of enumerated powers to the federal government.
Both state and federal governments derive their powers from the people.
It is thus ludicrous to claim that states have been delegated 'powers' to award powers to another form of government. Only people have the right to delegate basic powers.
States have no 'rights'.
Quote from case --" The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the states to regulate gun ownership and use in a "reasonable" manner. The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action."
We all need to study the court cases to realize what the judges are doing to us.
Viva Le Dissention: States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period. 62
Unfortunately you are correct, and what you are saying is going over everyone's head.
States don't have rights. It's important to get the basics correct first.
Wrong. They ruled that there was no "judicial notice" that such a weapon was "usefull" as a weapon of the militia. Big difference.
BTW, it is interesting that one of the justices later acknowledged the use by himself of just such a weapon when in the service of his country in WWI.
Some probably agree with Sarah Brady that the Second Amendment is "an anachronism." -- They probably didn't meam their oath to defend the Constituion -- they really intend to attack the Constitution.
I said, " All of the quotes you've presented here have been cut to be limited in extent to logically justify any rule, including the present govm't of Iraq." I gave as an example your cut fron Locke:
"And thus, that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world.-- John Locke"
Now, I elaborated on meaning back in #189 . The use of the word mob was per Webster: "a group of people : crowd syn see crowd", plus the additional concerns of that group given in #189. Posting popular, imprecise meanings of terms, given accurate descriptive meaning in the post, muddles up the whole thread.
This quote from Locke is simply a statement that a majority group that begins and/or constitutes a political society is all that is needed for lawful government. Locke is also quite inclusive, he uses the word, "any", to include all possibilities. I originally asked, "Is the govm't of Iraq a just form of govm't, or is it simply justified, because it was established and controlled by an effective majority of freemen and thus, according to Locke, lawful?"
The United States was not created with such limited concerns as Locke's majority group to declare itself lawful. In fact the group that rebelled against England was a minority. The founders, a minority from the several States, commented and made claims regarding rights and justifications for the goverment they created. They placed limits on the power govm't could exert. Some of those limits were expressed explicitely in the Bill of Rights.
The point of my original question was to illustrate that simple lawfulness, does not constitute right, or proper claim as just and fair. Simple exercise of majority rule w/o regard for the principles of truth, Freedom and individual rights is simply rule by a group with its own arbitrary motivations.
Franklin said roughly, "We did our best, now it's up to the future. Now let's go, or we'll never get outta here."
When, & if, elected officals and law enforcement agencys attempt to implement such 'law', they will be violating their oaths to protect & defend the constitution. Unintended consequenses may arise.
You've probably heard the phrase, "truth always outlives a lie". I like to rephrase that to, "honesty outlives a lie". That's said, consider the dot-com bubble burst of 2000. Dozens of dot-com companies with PE ratios at 80 to 1 despite never showing a profit in any quarter were destined to crash. Some "lies" are bigger than others. It's generally a fact that the bigger the "lie" the harder the crash when honesty eventually illuminates the environment for what it is and what it is not.
Now consider the plethora unjust laws and illusions that have been foisted on the people depicting the government to be just about everything but what it is supposed to be -- not to mention that almost every high-ranking government official has violated their oath of office.
The fraudulent house of cards is on the verge of collapse. Considering the leviathan-government lie, the crash will be proportionate. People get desperate when the economy and markets tank. Especially when stock markets, real estate markets and job markets lose massive value -- trillions of dollars and jobs.
We live in a different age than the 1930's great depression. This time around governments will be illuminated as the problem and business/science/technology advancement the solution. It's well into the preliminary stage on the Internet. No status quo external authority is announcing this. Rather, millions of individuals around the world are beginning to make similar assessments via the internal authority of their own thinking/integrating processes.
Unintended consequences is honesty illuminating the lie.
I have noticed over the years a somewhat steady increase in the number of people clamoring for the status quo. They are trying to drown out the competition. They're losing and the increase is a reflection of that. Yet what is it that we are winning? What does the future look like?
Cut the crap - you're mistaking me for the other ignorant hillbillies around here.
If the SC says you can't own a pop gun, it's the law.
Because the SC says so (or because it has never been asked to rule otherwise).
Wake up.
Viva Le Dissention: States have a right to prevent people from bearing arms. Period. 62
Senator Pardek: Unfortunately you are correct, and what you are saying is going over everyone's head. 256
Zon: States don't have rights. It's important to get the basics correct first.
Cut the crap - you're mistaking me for the other ignorant hillbillies around here.
No crap. Just a fact. States don't have rights. That's basic, IMO. Do you agree?
Would you petition to thbe UN for a new look? LOL!
Ah yes, the 9th Circuit, the wackest and most overturned of all the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals. While demolishing the collective, militia or "National Guard" "rights" interpretation of the second ammendment, The fifth circuit had this to say in Emerson
There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words "the people" have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution. In fact, the text of the Constitution, as a whole, strongly suggests that the words "the people" have precisely the same meaning within the Second Amendment as without. And, as used throughout the Constitution, "the people" have "rights" and "powers," but federal and state governments only have "powers" or "authority", never "rights."
and
The plain meaning of the right of the people to keep arms is that it is an individual, rather than a collective, right and is not limited to keeping arms while engaged in active military service or as a member of a select militia such as the National Guard
and finally
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons...
You've been watching too many Mel Gibson movies.
Be that as it may, it's a moot point, because they haven't said that, ever. They have allowed some very narrow restrictions on the RKBA, such as those apllicable to convicted felons.
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.