States vs. Weapons
I have listened to the arguments concerning states having the 'right' to limit arms to the citizens.
I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.
The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.
Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?
http://reason.com/blog/show/127246.html
Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2008,
Plans for post-Heller challenges to gun control laws throughout the country will come to naught unless the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a question the Supreme Court did not address in yesterday's decision. Three 19th-century Supreme Court decisions say it doesn't.
In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Klansmen who had used arson to intimidate and disarm freed blacks in Louisiana were charged with violating a federal statute that criminalized conspiracies to deprive people of their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress." It added, "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Likewise, in Presser v. State of Illinois (1886), which dealt with an Illinois law prohibiting private military exercises, the Court said the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And in Miller v. Texas (1894), a murder case in which the defendant argued that a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of weapons violated the Second and Fourth amendments, the Court said "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
As that last example suggests, these cases were all decided before the Supreme Court began to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment (ultimately settling on the Due Process Clause as the main rationale, although the Privileges or Immunities Clause might have been a better fit). Miller v. Texas actually anticipated that development, saying "if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."
The question for federal courts hearing challenges to state or local gun control laws, then, is whether the right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech or the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, is an aspect of the liberty protected from state encroachment by the 14th Amendment. After reading Heller, which emphasizes that the right to arms grows out of the basic right of self-preservation that preceded the Founding and was merely recognized, not created, by the Constitution, it is hard to imagine how the Court could say it should not be added to the list of civil liberties that states and municipalities must respect.
One Supreme Court case that neither the majority nor the dissenters in Heller cited is particularly illuminating on this point. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1856 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected a slave's petition for freedom, declaring that a black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger Taney said (emphasis added):
It cannot be supposed that [the states] intended to secure to [blacks] rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.
I think perhaps there is fully as much reason to go to war with the State..federal OR state...if there comes bans on weapons.
The Second Amendment merely lays out a few of the Rights understood to be inviolate...never to be trifled with by 'authorities'. I am no more willing to allow locals that power over me then I am the federal.
Are States and Cities Bound by the Second Amendment?
http://reason.com/blog/show/127246.html
Jacob Sullum | June 27, 2008,
Plans for post-Heller challenges to gun control laws throughout the country will come to naught unless the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, a question the Supreme Court did not address in yesterday's decision. Three 19th-century Supreme Court decisions say it doesn't.
In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1875), Klansmen who had used arson to intimidate and disarm freed blacks in Louisiana were charged with violating a federal statute that criminalized conspiracies to deprive people of their constitutional rights. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment "means no more than that [the right to keep and bear arms] shall not be infringed by Congress." It added, "This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."
Likewise, in Presser v. State of Illinois (1886), which dealt with an Illinois law prohibiting private military exercises, the Court said the Second Amendment "is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state." And in Miller v. Texas (1894), a murder case in which the defendant argued that a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of weapons violated the Second and Fourth amendments, the Court said "it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts."
As that last example suggests, these cases were all decided before the Supreme Court began to apply parts of the Bill of Rights to the states via the 14th Amendment (ultimately settling on the Due Process Clause as the main rationale, although the Privileges or Immunities Clause might have been a better fit). Miller v. Texas actually anticipated that development, saying "if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court."
The question for federal courts hearing challenges to state or local gun control laws, then, is whether the right to keep and bear arms, like freedom of speech or the guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, is an aspect of the liberty protected from state encroachment by the 14th Amendment. After reading Heller, which emphasizes that the right to arms grows out of the basic right of self-preservation that preceded the Founding and was merely recognized, not created, by the Constitution, it is hard to imagine how the Court could say it should not be added to the list of civil liberties that states and municipalities must respect.
One Supreme Court case that neither the majority nor the dissenters in Heller cited is particularly illuminating on this point. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the notorious 1856 decision in which the Supreme Court rejected a slave's petition for freedom, declaring that a black man had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect," Chief Justice Roger Taney said (emphasis added):
It cannot be supposed that [the states] intended to secure to [blacks] rights and privileges and rank, in the new political body throughout the Union which every one of them denied within the limits of its own dominion. More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.
The decision is no longer binding, obviously, but it provides strong evidence that the right to keep and bear arms was considered part of the "privileges or immunities of citizens" that the 14th Amendment was aimed at securing.
0
-
I think perhaps we are playing the game of an anti-gunner here;
No society of man was EVER perfect. Attempting to prove this time or that time as being better then another is futile...for somebody else will spring to attention, loudly pointing to some infraction that is really, truly terrible.
What we should confine ourselves to is original intent...and the transgressions thereof.
Allowing an anti-gunner to kick up endless gray areas is all good fun ..but that is EXACTLY the technique utilized by the NRA in their excuses for endorsing this or that gun bill.
"Well ..it is better then a total ban...see..we got a sunset put in...see we managed to water it down.."...the endless rhetoric they use to somehow excuse their involvement in gun control laws.
For those concerned about my past ..as far as you are concerned...I am a Keyboard Kommando. You will discuss with me the merits of my arguments ..not what I have done.
That subject is closed..it is none of your business.
When I say something...you are free to accept it...or reject it.
That is the basis of a free country.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I think perhaps we are playing the game of an anti-gunner here;
No society of man was EVER perfect.
When I say something...you are free to accept it...or reject it.
That is the basis of a free country.
HB,
I agree compleatly!!![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Here we go again, you guys are really going to get my post count up like Jeff and HB did several months ago.[;)]
So please, newbies, go back and read up so I don't have to keep repeating myself!!!![V]
What part of this do you not understand?????[?]0 -
Jim must be talking to himself. While you're at it grab a dictionary. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by codenamepaul[:o)]
Jim must be talking to himself. While you're at it grab a dictionary.[:o)]
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me!!![:p][;)]0 -
Goofball[:D] 0 -
Thank you, that is one of the nicer things I have been called here!!![;)] 0 -
Damn Jim, it looks like someone ate your lunch and took you milk money too.[:D][:o)]
codenamepaul, YOU sir, are articulate and on-point in this public spanking of Mr. Rau.
Jim, you know that although we disagree on the meaning and intent of the Constitution and the proper role of government, I still kinda like you.[:I][:)] You are, if nothing else, tenacious.0 -
Jeff,
Where have you been hiding!! And you had better not have been off hunting again!!![}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Where have you been hiding!! And you had better not have been off hunting again!!![}:)]
I wish I were hunting again Jim.
Very nasty election at the S.O. is now over. Numbnuts-in-Chief was ousted (thank God). New Boss coming in, lots of projects, reports, assessments, transition plans etc, to complete.
Politically-based retribution, backbiting, panic, paranoia and various other nasty business going on internally.
Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
I am so thoroughly sick of B.S. and controversy that I have not felt like posting.
Other than that, I am doing great.[:D]0 -
Lt496;
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.0 -
quote:Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?0 -
Jeff,
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Lt496;
Welcome back.
Noticed your list of 32-20's...sorta makes me salivate.
I faintly remember when I salivated over wimmin that way...but after awhile, I discovered that guns last longer...[:D]
Since you have been gone, we have sorta been havin' our way with Mr Rau. He is a pretty good sort, actually..but still holding firm on the full auto thing.
Long as he has his rifle pointed the right direction...that problem can be thrashed out when the new Conventions are held, after the taking back is over.
Yeah Bert, the post of the 32-20's got me thinking about some of the old rifles in the back of my safe and it was a nice diversion to hold them again...memories and all that.
Jim is often irritating and off-base (IMO Jim[:o)]) on some very important points, but I am sure that if things really go south, as it were, he will be on the right side.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Do you have a make on this piece of snit, Captain ?
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive. I'll keep my suspicions to myself in that case.
Regardless, he is entitled to his opinions, although his character (rather the lack thereof) and motivation is now clear.
I'll be okay, since I am careful to never speak on behalf of the agency, only offer my personal views. We'll see if I am allowed to have personal opinions and views I guess.
I am not sweating the small stuff though.[;)] I will not be cowed, nor silenced as to my individual views and opinions, regardless of where I work, or what my profession is.0 -
I sir, like you, am an individualist!!![;)]
Correction, tenacious individualist![}:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.0 -
Jeff,
At any rate, I am glad your back![8D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Jeff,
Believe me Sir, I know EXACTLY how you feel!!! If there is anything I can do to help let me know![V]
I hope you have a boss with some personal integrity and will stand behind you!
Jim, you do indeed know where I am at in this situation, having lived it yourself.
Appreciate the offer of help and i'll remember that you offered it, although I am not concerned, just irritated.
I have never tied any of my views to those of my agency. Many of you know where I work and others know simply that I am a peace officer. Regardless, I do not and have not spoken as a representative of my agency on any such issue, just as me, the individual, who happens to be a peace officer.
It will pass, I suspect.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
Count on it pickenup, for your personal knowledge only.
One apparently needs to watch one's back around some of these collectivist, big-government types. They seem threatened by individualists and by those who stand for the Constitution.
Go figure....
If any damage, or negative perception is placed on my professional standing due to this weasel, he can expect civil action, swift and harsh.[;)]0 -
Ah crap! Now we're all nice-nice again. I HATE it when that happens....
Where's my bourbon??????0 -
Sorry slime bags.
There is much made of the fact that I rarely give out personal information. I have heard several times the sort of thing you are talking about right there on these forums.
Coward barstards that are only fit to wipe up pz with their tongue. I tend to be an excitable sort ..and fear I would hunt them like I would a rabid dog if they attack me in that fashion.
Yeah, I realize that that is `just plain wrong'...but this world is full of snitbirds...and we don't help by allowing them to breath.0 -
Bert,
Why don't you tell us how you really feel.[}:)]By the way I agree with you here!!![8D]
Well in case you haven't noticed I use my real name and location. I was threatened several times as a cop. I said bring it on! We won't go into those encounters though. I don't care who knows who I am or where I am. I do understand why Jeff can't do this, first hand. I don't know each of your situations so I can't judge you individually, but I do say I thing many on these web sites use them a s a 'hiding place'! I would like to see more people 'come out of the closet' and be counted.[V]0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
+1
Whoever it is, he's pathetic......0 -
Add to that, a slimy-weasel of a GB member contacting my agency, trying to screw me over for my individualist/constitutionalist stances, which he feels are inappropriate for an "Officer of The Law" to hold. The weasel is trying to tie my personal positions to my position and my agency, as if I were speaking as a representative, rather than as an individual who happens to hold a position in the business.
Captain,
Glad to see you back.[:)]
If you find out for sure who the slimeball is that attempted to undermine your position, please, name names.
This is exactly the type of person who would be the 'snitch' when the confiscation starts.0 -
Good point fire dude!![^] 0 -
quote:+1
Whoever it is, he's pathetic......
Agreed Brother Rack.
quote:Captain,
Glad to see you back.
If you find out for sure who the slimeball is that attempted to undermine your position, please, name names.
This is exactly the type of person who would be the 'snitch' when the confiscation starts.
Thanks firedude. A "snitch-like" weasel he is and he would act as you surmise, I suspect.
I really see no real issue developing, since I speak for me, not my agency. The fact that he slithered in and dropped a back-stabbing, weasel-like dime, well, that is what gets my goat.
As Highball once said, and I paraphrase here, the stench of snake is heavy in the air.[:D]
Major lack of character and a weak, pathetic psyche it seems.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by lt496
Yeah, I am pretty sure who it is, but not positive.
If you become positive, I would appreciate an email.
Me too captain. Perhaps there is something I can do, to uh, help Karma along?[;)]0 -
Captain;
I have been simmering over here ever since I read your post concerning the rat. It would be terrified to look any one of us in the eye and tell what it did...I use `it' because a creature like that is not fully human.
Fury is an emotion I should no longer feel. Yet I do.
Sir, I do not know what I can do...for to any that find what YOU say objectionable I would be a raving lunatic. Sending a letter of support for you would be counterproductive, I would think...if they tied it in here to Gun Broker...and I see no way out of doing that.
The action that springs to mind is to defend one of our own in the manner I know to be effective ..yet it is not yet time for that either.
I have long felt that you were sticking you neck on the chopping block for your support of the Constitution as it was written...and I have appreciated every word you have put on these forums, with your strong arguments.
God bless you, Jeff...fire me an e-mail if you wish to vent.
Is it possible that the 'it' is not posting here any longer..the subject of prior e-mails ? That nut case springs to mind...0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Captain;
I have been simmering over here ever since I read your post concerning the rat. It would be terrified to look any one of us in the eye and tell what it did...I use `it' because a creature like that is not fully human.
Fury is an emotion I should no longer feel. Yet I do.
Sir, I do not know what I can do...for to any that find what YOU say objectionable I would be a raving lunatic. Sending a letter of support for you would be counterproductive, I would think...if they tied it in here to Gun Broker...and I see no way out of doing that.
The action that springs to mind is to defend one of our own in the manner I know to be effective ..yet it is not yet time for that either.
I have long felt that you were sticking you neck on the chopping block for your support of the Constitution as it was written...and I have appreciated every word you have put on these forums, with your strong arguments.
God bless you, Jeff...fire me an e-mail if you wish to vent.
Is it possible that the 'it' is not posting here any longer..the subject of prior e-mails ? That nut case springs to mind...
Appreciate the sentiments Highball, but there is nothing to do about the matter.
I see no legitimate repercussions that can come from the hissing of the snake, but merely the casting of aspersions on who and what I am and believe.
As to your suspicion about the slithering ones identity, it isn't that one. He seemed more obsessed with you than me, for some strange reason.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
106 comments