Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 8/13/2002 4:33:50 PM EDT
It is my understanding that the Constitution applies in all states that belong to the United States. Is this correct? I'm sure that allot of you know about the ruling in Denver that you cant bare arms. The judge came right out and said that the constitution doesnt apply in Denver. If this is the case does that mean that Denver is not part of the United States? In that case shouldnt the military go in and take over Denver?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 4:38:33 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: In that case shouldnt the military go in and take over Denver?
View Quote
Nope. Just the court house!
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 4:38:52 PM EDT
Doesn't apply in Illinois either. Not even the Illinois [b]STATE[/b] Constitution is recognized!
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:01:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: It is my understanding that the Constitution applies in all states that belong to the United States. Is this correct? I'm sure that allot of you know about the ruling in Denver that you cant bare arms. The judge came right out and said that the constitution doesnt apply in Denver. If this is the case does that mean that Denver is not part of the United States? In that case shouldnt the military go in and take over Denver?
View Quote
I'm not sure what the quote actually was, but if he was referring to your right to arms as protected by the Second Amendment, he's absolutely - legally - right. Two Supreme Court cases have held that the Second Amendment protects against only [i]Federal[/i] infringement of your right to arms. The states are free to do as they please. The Second Amendment remains the only Amendment not "incorporated" against state infringement under the "priveledge and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment. It's past time that changed.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:01:34 PM EDT
IIRC, the judge (jerkwad) told the defense attorney that the Constitution could not be used in the man's defense or he would be held in contempt. This should have been the que to stand up and recite the document! Imagine the public outcry if someone were thrown in jail for reading the Constitution in an American court of law. This judge should be removed from the bench.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:11:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/13/2002 7:11:46 PM EDT by Redmanfms]
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo: This judge should be removed from the bench.
View Quote
In my town he'd be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail. If he was really lucky he wouldn't get introduced to a thirteen-looped length of hemp.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:12:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo:This should have been the que to stand up and recite the document! Imagine the public outcry if someone were thrown in jail for reading the Constitution in an American court of law.
View Quote
I doubt there would have been any outrage. There wasn't much news coverage that I saw about this would-be tyrant not allowing the constitution to be referenced in "his" court. Maybe a few people bitching on websites like this, and a few talk radio calls, after a week or two of "what a shame" it would be right back to TV, beer, and football. Nothing would be done about it.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:14:51 PM EDT
DO YOU HAVE A LINK FOR THAT STORY?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:21:28 PM EDT
Here's one, I'll see if I can find more. [url]www.halturnershow.com/JudgeSaysConstitutionVoid.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 7:24:17 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NORTH556: DO YOU HAVE A LINK FOR THAT STORY?
View Quote
[url]http://www.stanley2002.org/denvsconstitution.htm[/url]
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:03:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo: This judge should be removed from the bench.
View Quote
[size=5][red]With extreme prejudice![/red][/size=5]
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:15:14 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jrzy:
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo: This judge should be removed from the bench.
View Quote
[size=5][red]With extreme prejudice![/red][/size=5]
View Quote
Unfortunately, this was probably all just to enhance his resume in hopes of being appointed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:29:18 PM EDT
Its good to see people upset. This is what I have going in my head. I would like to register RedDenver.com (as in communist Denver)and put a bunch of information about the subject on the site. Then, if I can raise some money I would like to rent a couple bill boards on the city limits of Denver saying something to the effect of Welcome to Denver Caution: Your Constitutional rights dont apply here. www.reddenver.com Does this sound like something do-able to you guys? Is there any way that I could get into any trouble doing this?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:34:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: Its good to see people upset. This is what I have going in my head. I would like to register RedDenver.com (as in communist Denver)and put a bunch of information about the subject on the site. Then, if I can raise some money I would like to rent a couple bill boards on the city limits of Denver saying something to the effect of Welcome to Denver Caution: Your Constitutional rights dont apply here. www.reddenver.com Does this sound like something do-able to you guys? Is there any way that I could get into any trouble doing this?
View Quote
Should be do-able, just make sure you have reliable sources for any quotes or accusations so you can't be sued for libel. Also, make sure this is brought up during this judges next campaign!
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:43:14 PM EDT
I'm on a radio show in Dallas called Law and Disorder on CBS radio, 105.3FM KYNG. I'd like to use this story on the air, but we need a non partisan source (CNN, Reuters, AP NewsWire, Major City Paper, ect...) It's a great story! If you guys run across other stuff, I'd love to hear about it... www.law-disorder.com
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:56:05 PM EDT
He's probably kin to the Judge that wouldn't allow God into the Pledge of Allegiance. Idiot.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 8:57:22 PM EDT
I do believe this is incorrect. The Constitution is the law of the land and the freedoms and limitations grants may not be infringed by state or local government. Rights or restriction not in the constitution, are reserved for the states or for the people. If this country actually followed the constitution, no state can infringe your right to bear arms any more than they are allowed to restrict your free speech. The problem is the fed ignores the second amendment, thus the states do as well. Mike
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:00:35 PM EDT
I'm not exactly sure of the year but I think It was about 1976 The gov changed the IRS Fed Tax forms from Voluntary to Mandatory Taxation. I think some guy is still fighting this because the Tax used to be Vol. But anyway back to the topic,if enough people would file their state taxes under protest. Say to that state that doesn't recognize the fed constitution. They might cause enough of a stink that they would again have a voice in state constitution,better yet fire off letters to all your state reps saying just how you feel about gun control and that changes are going to be made at the next election. Give your state Reps hell,and I bet you will see change. If not Its still the only way to get it done. Of coarse bullets are cheaper than ballots,but not near as effective in the long haul. Bob [8D]
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:03:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NORTH556: I'm on a radio show in Dallas called Law and Disorder on CBS radio, 105.3FM KYNG. I'd like to use this story on the air, but we need a non partisan source (CNN, Reuters, AP NewsWire, Major City Paper, ect...) It's a great story! If you guys run across other stuff, I'd love to hear about it... www.law-disorder.com
View Quote
NORTH556, Is your radio show a talk format or news? If it is talk format, email rick@stanley2002.org, He is a Libertarian cantidate for the US Senate. I'm sure he will have trasncripts of the trial.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:10:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker: The Second Amendment remains the only Amendment not "incorporated" against state infringement under the "priveledge and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
View Quote
Can you please elaborate on this ?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:16:03 PM EDT
When a state is brought into the Union what happens? Are they given a set of rules?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:28:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By KBaker: The Second Amendment remains the only Amendment not "incorporated" against state infringement under the "priveledge and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
View Quote
Can you please elaborate on this ?
View Quote
The 14th Amendment should make no difference. That clause was written to enable states to deny blacks the ownership of firearms after the Civil War. The 9th states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So any amendment before or after has no bearing on any other. So the clause in the 14th is unconstitutional. This is the battle that need to be fought in the courts. The only way any state or municipal court could deny Constitutional Rights would be to succeed from the union first.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:32:35 PM EDT
Also, anyone know where I can find exactly what the Northwest Ordnance of 1787 said?
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:37:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo: The only way any state or municipal court could deny Constitutional Rights would be to succeed from the union first.
View Quote
This is my understanding also. More people need to be educated of the situation in Dever. I am trying to find more.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:39:52 PM EDT
The constitution says anything not covered here-in is then up to the individual states to govern on. That's kind of broad kind of like-catch 22. The state asks for the Gov oppion on an issue,then the Gov says its not covered here or we don't want to rule on this and its back to the state level again. So the Gov is saying what works in say Texas,won't necessarily work in New York,so each state has their own way of doing things. Not very universal or the way we would like to read the constitution,as what's good for one is good for all. It's still very open end the way I see It,If one American has certain rights,then all Americans should have the same. But then again I feel If you can own a semi-auto and can pass the background check for it then you should be responsible for a full auto also! Bob [8D]
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:44:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: Also, anyone know where I can find exactly what the Northwest Ordnance of 1787 said?
View Quote
Go here [url]www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm[/url]
Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio. Section 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Sec 2. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and nonresident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descent to, and be distributed among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among them: And where there shall be no children or descendants, then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceased parents' share; and there shall in no case be a distinction between kindred of the whole and half blood; saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third part of the real estate for life, and one third part of the personal estate; and this law relative to descents and dower, shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of the district. And until the governor and judges shall adopt laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her in whom the estate may be (being of full age), and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale, signed, sealed and delivered by the person being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and registers shall be appointed for that purpose; and personal property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents and the neighboring villages who have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia, their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to the descent and conveyance, of property.
View Quote
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:52:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo:
Originally Posted By schapman43: Also, anyone know where I can find exactly what the Northwest Ordnance of 1787 said?
View Quote
Go here [url]www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nworder.htm[/url]
Northwest Ordinance; July 13, 1787 An Ordinance for the government of the Territory of the United States northwest of the River Ohio. Section 1. Be it ordained by the United States in Congress assembled, That the said territory, for the purposes of temporary government, be one district, subject, however, to be divided into two districts, as future circumstances may, in the opinion of Congress, make it expedient. Sec 2. Be it ordained by the authority aforesaid, That the estates, both of resident and nonresident proprietors in the said territory, dying intestate, shall descent to, and be distributed among their children, and the descendants of a deceased child, in equal parts; the descendants of a deceased child or grandchild to take the share of their deceased parent in equal parts among them: And where there shall be no children or descendants, then in equal parts to the next of kin in equal degree; and among collaterals, the children of a deceased brother or sister of the intestate shall have, in equal parts among them, their deceased parents' share; and there shall in no case be a distinction between kindred of the whole and half blood; saving, in all cases, to the widow of the intestate her third part of the real estate for life, and one third part of the personal estate; and this law relative to descents and dower, shall remain in full force until altered by the legislature of the district. And until the governor and judges shall adopt laws as hereinafter mentioned, estates in the said territory may be devised or bequeathed by wills in writing, signed and sealed by him or her in whom the estate may be (being of full age), and attested by three witnesses; and real estates may be conveyed by lease and release, or bargain and sale, signed, sealed and delivered by the person being of full age, in whom the estate may be, and attested by two witnesses, provided such wills be duly proved, and such conveyances be acknowledged, or the execution thereof duly proved, and be recorded within one year after proper magistrates, courts, and registers shall be appointed for that purpose; and personal property may be transferred by delivery; saving, however to the French and Canadian inhabitants, and other settlers of the Kaskaskies, St. Vincents and the neighboring villages who have heretofore professed themselves citizens of Virginia, their laws and customs now in force among them, relative to the descent and conveyance, of property.
View Quote
View Quote
Guess thats not what I was looking for. I was under the impression that it contained the requirements of statehood.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 9:55:13 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bobbyjack: The constitution says anything not covered here-in is then up to the individual states to govern on. That's kind of broad kind of like-catch 22. The state asks for the Gov oppion on an issue,then the Gov says its not covered here or we don't want to rule on this and its back to the state level again. So the Gov is saying what works in say Texas,won't necessarily work in New York,so each state has their own way of doing things. Not very universal or the way we would like to read the constitution,as what's good for one is good for all. It's still very open end the way I see It,If one American has certain rights,then all Americans should have the same. But then again I feel If you can own a semi-auto and can pass the background check for it then you should be responsible for a full auto also! Bob [8D]
View Quote
Things not covered in the Constitution are up to the individual states to decide, but the individual rights affirmed, not given, in the Bill Of Rights cannot be denied in any state. You are correct, any individual who can legally own a firearm should be able to own a fully automatic firearm. The 2nd was written because the founding fathers agreed that it was the right of the people to be on a level playing field with any military force in the world.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 10:03:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo:
Originally Posted By NORTH556: I'm on a radio show in Dallas called Law and Disorder on CBS radio, 105.3FM KYNG. I'd like to use this story on the air, but we need a non partisan source (CNN, Reuters, AP NewsWire, Major City Paper, ect...) It's a great story! If you guys run across other stuff, I'd love to hear about it... www.law-disorder.com
View Quote
NORTH556, Is your radio show a talk format or news? If it is talk format, email rick@stanley2002.org, He is a Libertarian cantidate for the US Senate. I'm sure he will have trasncripts of the trial.
View Quote
It's a talk radio format, CBS RADIO 105.3 FM KYNG, Dallas, TX Sat. 8p-10p. You can check out our website, www.law-disorder.com We always try to confirm at least 3 independent, and reliable sources for stories, so any help is appreciated.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 10:13:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: Guess thats not what I was looking for. I was under the impression that it contained the requirements of statehood.
View Quote
Are you looking for the states requirements as far as the treatment of individual within the state? If that is what you are looking for it is in the Constitution. Article IV (The States) Section 2 says: The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.
Link Posted: 8/13/2002 10:31:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NORTH556:
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo:
Originally Posted By NORTH556: I'm on a radio show in Dallas called Law and Disorder on CBS radio, 105.3FM KYNG. I'd like to use this story on the air, but we need a non partisan source (CNN, Reuters, AP NewsWire, Major City Paper, ect...) It's a great story! If you guys run across other stuff, I'd love to hear about it... www.law-disorder.com
View Quote
NORTH556, Is your radio show a talk format or news? If it is talk format, email rick@stanley2002.org, He is a Libertarian cantidate for the US Senate. I'm sure he will have trasncripts of the trial.
View Quote
It's a talk radio format, CBS RADIO 105.3 FM KYNG, Dallas, TX Sat. 8p-10p. You can check out our website, www.law-disorder.com We always try to confirm at least 3 independent, and reliable sources for stories, so any help is appreciated.
View Quote
Here is one From the Las Vegas Review Journel [url]12.9.217.6/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1029305699&view=rjsearch&numhitsfound=12&query=judge%20denies%20constitution&query_rule=%28%28$query%29%29%20AND%20%28%23date%28$quer­y1%29%29%3ADATE%20AND%20%28%28$query4%29%29%3­AHEADLINE&docid=11609&docdb=2002&dbname=2002&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1[/url]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 2:36:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By NORTH556: but we need a non partisan source (CNN, Reuters, AP NewsWire, Major City Paper, ect
View Quote
uhhhh, non partisan? CNN ?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 5:09:22 AM EDT
Yeah, since when is CNN non-partisan?
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 6:29:31 AM EDT
Gotta love the concept of home-rule, eh? I openly admit I could be incorrect....but my understanding was that the Constitution was not an issue in the given proceeding....that it was merely to decide whether or not the defendant had by actions violated the city ordinance/law. That any such references to the Constitution should be argued on appeal.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:17:34 AM EDT
I believe hard-case is right. I've talked to several people who understand legal procedure far better than I do, and they all said basically the same thing. This trial had nothing to do with whether or not the ordinance is Constitutional, but whether Stanley had violated it. The judge in question may be a total jackass, I really don't know. But I think he was correct in disallowing the argument of Constitutionality in this trial. I also believe that the lawyer for Stanley knew that he couldn't argue this case on that basis, but brought it up for the sake of grandstanding. Look at how much free publicity the case has received among the gun community. I do hope that Stanley is able to get the ordinance thrown out in his appeal, but even he had to know it wasn't going to happen in the first trial.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:20:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 8:10:41 AM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By out-a-ammo:
Originally Posted By Philadelphia_GunMan:
Originally Posted By KBaker: The Second Amendment remains the only Amendment not "incorporated" against state infringement under the "priviledge and immunities" clause or the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment.
View Quote
Can you please elaborate on this ?
View Quote
The 14th Amendment should make no difference. That clause was written to enable states to deny blacks the ownership of firearms after the Civil War. The 9th states "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So any amendment before or after has no bearing on any other. So the clause in the 14th is unconstitutional. This is the battle that need to be fought in the courts. The only way any state or municipal court could deny Constitutional Rights would be to succeed from the union first.
View Quote
Philadelphia_GunMan: Yes, I can. out-a-ammo: It ain't quite that simple. This all goes back to the 13th and 14th Amendments that were written to give to ensure that freed slaves had all the "priviledges and immunities" of citizens. The "priviledges and immunities" phrase came from Chief Justice Taney's decision in the [i]Scott v. Sanford[/i] case, better known as the [i]Dred Scott[/i] decision. Dred Scott was a slave belonging to an Army officer (coincidently, another "Dr. Emerson) who had, because of his master's job, spent several years in a "free" state before returning to a slave state where his owner died. Abolitionist lawyers in his behalf claimed that because he had lived in a "free" state, he was free, and no longer a slave. They claimed, in fact, that he was a citizen. The Supreme Court decided (7-2) differently. Justice Taney declared not only was Dred Scott still a slave, but that [i]no[/i] blacks could be citizens, free or not. Because:
For if they were so received, and entitled to the [red]privileges and immunities of citizens[/red], 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, [red]and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.[/red] And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State.
View Quote
So, for reasons of "public safety," free blacks could not be citizens. After the war, the 13th Amendment [i]made them[/i] citizens, but the States enacted severely restrictive laws called "the Black Codes" that denied them certain types of jobs, prohibited them from testifying against whites, denied them the right to arms, and so on. The 14th Amendment was passed to ensure that the "priviledges and immunities" of citizens would not be denied to them. Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the [red]privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States[/red]; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
View Quote
Note the similar phrasing to that used by Taney in [i]Dred Scott.[/i]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 7:27:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 8:13:36 AM EDT by KBaker]
(cont'd) Except after the passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court again screwed them over. In [i]U.S. v Cruikshank[/i] the case was about a group of blacks that had been attacked and killed by a group of whites after the blacks had been disarmed. The plaintiffs had claimed that their Second Amendment right to arms had been violated, and that the 14th Amendment required the Federal government to ensure that the State guarantee them the right. Not so, said Chief Justice Waite.
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ''bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'' This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the ''powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,'' ''not surrendered or restrained'' by the Constitution of the United States.
View Quote
This decision gets taken out of context by anti-gunners who state that it means that there is no right to "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." They leave out the part about it pre-existing and being guaranteed by the Second Amendment. But anyway, this part says that the Second Amendment is ONLY a protection against infringement BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The citizens have to rely on the States not to do it. But later in the decision on the question of the 14th Amendment, the court says this:
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from denying to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws; but this provision does not, any more than the one which precedes it, and which we have just considered, add any thing [92 U.S. 542, 555] to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another. The equality of the rights of citizens is a principle of republicanism. Every republican government is in duty bound to protect all its citizens in the enjoyment of this principle, if within its power. That duty was originally assumed by the States; and it still remains there. The only obligation resting upon the United States is to see that the States do not deny the right. This the amendment guarantees, but no more. The power of the national government is limited to the enforcement of this guaranty.
View Quote
See the illogic here? It's the obligation of the Federal Government to see that the States don't deny rights to the citizens, but it's OK for the States to violate the protections of the Second Amendment - it's [i]not[/i] the job of the Federal government to intervene and force the State to obey the Constitution. Huh? Eleven years later in [i]Presser v. Illinois[/i] the Supreme Court quoted [i]U.S. v Cruikshank[/i] on the "shall not be infringed by Congress" part, and pretty much sealed the Second Amendment against incorporation. Incorporation decisions began very soon after passage of the 14th Amendment, but the most famous one was [i]Brown v. Board of Education[/i] where the Burger court declared, after decades of legal precedent, that "separate but equal" wasn't. We [b]NEED[/b] an incorporation decision on the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, the [i]Emerson[/i] case, because it was about a Federal statute, did not allow it to be brought up. If the Second Amendment is incorporated, it will allow us to fight most if not all of the state restrictions on RKBA, arguing that they exceed the Federal limits and are thereby unconstitutional.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 8:08:41 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 8:23:05 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: Isn't part of the issue here as well maybe that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 2nd does not bestow an INDIVIDUAL right? Whether we agree with it or not, the judge may just have been following that as a guideline, and seen no value in the defendant bringing up the 2nd as a reason for individual ownership when the SCOTUS has already ruled on that. More of a question really on my part, since I am no expert on this.
View Quote
As someone who has studied this in detail since about 1995, I humbly consider myself an expert. So to answer your question, no the Supreme Court has never ruled that the 2nd does not bestow an individual right. Insofar as it goes, [i]U.S. v. Cruikshank[/i] declares that the right is individual, and [i]pre-exists[/i] the 2nd Amendment. Understand this: The Bill of Rights doesn't [i]give us[/i] [b]any[/b] rights. It [i]protects[/i] the rights we recognize [i]against government infringement[/i]. But the Supreme Court has never ruled that the right to arms is anything other than individual.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 10:26:37 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 10:54:17 AM EDT
I'm normally a law-and-order kind of guy. Hell, I'm [i]still[/i] a law-and-order kind of guy. This is [i]precisely[/i] what the Second Amendment was written for. That judge needs to be disbarred. At gunpoint.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 11:04:25 AM EDT
I believe civil disobedience is called for in circumstances such as this. Every gun owner in the city should show up at the courthouse with their holsters strapped on. Go ahead, arrest all of them.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 12:09:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 12:15:21 PM EDT
It was stated in Miller that a short barreled shotgun "wasn't particularly suitable for militia drill/use" thus could be regulated. So, that means we should be able to buy M16's with impunity, since they are the weapon of the Militia. Miller in NO WAY invalidated the 2nd. It simply ruled that short barreled shotties weren't suitable for such uses as stipulated in the 2nd Amendment. Read the majority opinion on it. It isn't as "anti-gun" as the VPC would have you believe.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 12:18:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 12:20:05 PM EDT by McUZI]
Here. I had Cornell Law's LII legal search engine in another browser window... Here's the syllabus for 1939 US v. Miller [url]http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+307+u!2Es!2E+174!3A]!28[group+edited!3­A]!7C[level++case+citation!3A]!29/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?[/url]
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 12:36:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/14/2002 12:56:23 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By DK-Prof: My understanding of that case (Cruikshank) is that the ruling also said that states were free to regulate this as they pleased, since the consitution only limited Congress' powers.
View Quote
That is correct. Go back and re-read what I wrote. But read very carefully the section concerning the 14th Amendment. In my opinion, the Supreme Court twisted itself into a logical pretzel to avoid enforcing the Second Amendment protections on the States under the power obviously intended by the 14th Amendment. The 14th was put there to [i]force[/i] the states to ensure "equal protection" under the law for all citizens - and all citizens had a right to "bear arms for lawful purpose." They weaseled out of it because had they not it would mean that (horrors!) black people could be armed too, and the state couldn't do anything about it.[pissed]
I am also under the impression that the Supreme Court CLEARLY ruled that the 2nd amendement was relevant only to organizaed state militias in U.S. v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Again, I'm not an expert - I just looked these up - but they seem pretty clear to me. The Supreme Court consistently says that states can regulate guns ownership any way they see fit.
View Quote
That's what you've been told by the media for decades. Do two things: 1) read Sanford Levinson's [url=www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/embar.html]The Embarrassing Second Amendment[/url], then read the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals [url=www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm]Emerson decision[/url], specifically the section starting "B. Stare Decisis and United States v. Miller" [i]Other [u]lower[/u] Federal Courts[/i] have [b]interpreted[/b] [i]U.S. v Miller[/i] as having a collective, militia meaning. Historians and legal scholars have questioned that interpretation for years. The 5th Circuit refuted that interpretation in their decision. To quote:
We conclude that Miller does not support the government's collective rights or sophisticated collective rights approach to the Second Amendment. Indeed, to the extent that Miller sheds light on the matter it cuts against the government's position. Nor does the government cite any other authority binding on this panel which mandates acceptance of its position in this respect.(21) However, we do not proceed on the assumption that Miller actually accepted an individual rights, as opposed to a collective or sophisticated collective rights, interpretation of the Second Amendment. Thus, Miller itself does not resolve that issue.(22) We turn, therefore, to an analysis of history and wording of the Second Amendment for guidance. In undertaking this analysis, we are mindful that almost all of our sister circuits have rejected any individual rights view of the Second Amendment. [red]However, it respectfully appears to us that all or almost all of these opinions seem to have done so either on the erroneous assumption that Miller resolved that issue or without sufficient articulated examination of the history and text of the Second Amendment.[/red]
View Quote
In short: "they didn't go back to original intent, we did. They're wrong." The [b]Supreme[/b] Court has [i]avoided[/i] interpreting the Second Amendment since 1939. If a 2nd Amendment case comes up for appeal (like the recent [i]Emerson[/i] and [i]Haney[/i] cases,) the Court refuses certiorari, and doesn't hear them. The media and apparently the lower courts interpreted this as accepting of the "states rights" interpretation. But you'll note that they denied cert. on [i]Emerson[/i], too. And [i]Emerson[/i] says it's an individual right.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 12:50:42 PM EDT
But then again I feel If you can own a semi-auto and can pass the background check for it then you should be responsible for a full auto also! Bob [8D]
View Quote
This is exactly the kind of person we need in the NRA. The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to with guns used for hunting. The 2nd amendment was to aid in the prevention of tyranny from the government. How can we prevent tyranny when they are about to throw us into the stone-age? Technically, if you are a law-abiding US citizen, you should be able to go to K-Mart and buy machineguns, anti-tank weapons, grenades or anything that may be used against you by a tyrannical government. We only have sticks and stones compared to what they have.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 1:19:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DevilsAdvocate: Technically, if you are a law-abiding US citizen, you should be able to go to K-Mart and buy machineguns, anti-tank weapons, grenades or anything that may be used against you by a tyrannical government. We only have sticks and stones compared to what they have.
View Quote
That's a nice argument, but given historical legal interpretation, I think a pretty strong case can be made for constitutionally valid restrictions on weapons [i]other[/i] than standard small-arms. At a minimum, a requirement for registration. It's nice to believe we could all own a perfectly functional MLRS track, but right now I'd be happy if they'd finally legally recognize our rights to pistols, rifles and shotguns, much less full-auto weapons.
Link Posted: 8/14/2002 1:23:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By schapman43: I'm sure that allot of you know about the ruling in Denver that you cant bare arms.
View Quote
When t-shirts are outlawed, only outlaws will have t-shirts.
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 4:23:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/15/2002 4:24:57 AM EDT by TheRicker]
Originally Posted By KBaker: That's a nice argument, but given historical legal interpretation, I think a pretty strong case can be made for constitutionally valid restrictions on weapons [i]other[/i] than standard small-arms. At a minimum, a requirement for registration. It's nice to believe we could all own a perfectly functional MLRS track, but right now I'd be happy if they'd finally legally recognize our rights to pistols, rifles and shotguns, much less full-auto weapons.
View Quote
No offense intended here, but it's attitudes like this that allow our rights to be slowly eroded by the anti's. We need to stand up and demand what is rightfully ours - all of it. We shouldn't merely hope and plead that they let us have a few privileges. Rights are rights. Reminds me of the legendary William Wallace's struggle to show the Scottish nobles that the entire country was their's while they were jubilant if the king of England was [i]gracious[/i] enough to grant them a plot of their own land. We're spineless. The proverbial boat NEEDS rocking. [edited for sp]
Link Posted: 8/15/2002 4:46:35 AM EDT
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. QUOTED FROM THE ABOVE DRED SCOTT DECISION... Did any one else notice how ALL of these things have been taken away from ALL men?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top