Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Link?And their weapons were not registered. They showed up with anything they hadWell regulated in the vernacular of the 18th century meant in working order, disciplined.
The government need not be involved at all. The people are perfectly capable of organizing and training themselves
A militia where nobody knows who is in it or what weapons are available to defend the security of our free state is not ordered or disciplined
I guess it's a good thing the colonists didn't subscribe to your thinking. They all just showed up with the weapons trained and fought together and it worked pretty well.
You kinda slept when they taught about the Revolutionary War didn't you?
Minute Men trained, they were known in their community, they had an organized military structure
They did not just randomly show up if they felt like it
Local militias kept records of who belonged, rank and their weapons
Type of weapon was needed for logistics and supply
--LOLGun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment
no it is not
--LOL
the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at
after brits came for the armories and powder houses
A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....
How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)
SO there you have it there was no need for registering since each person was to supply his own weapon and ammunitionWell regulated in the vernacular of the 18th century meant in working order, disciplined.
The government need not be involved at all. The people are perfectly capable of organizing and training themselves
A militia where nobody knows who is in it or what weapons are available to defend the security of our free state is not ordered or disciplined
I guess it's a good thing the colonists didn't subscribe to your thinking. They all just showed up with the weapons trained and fought together and it worked pretty well.
You kinda slept when they taught about the Revolutionary War didn't you?
Minute Men trained, they were known in their community, they had an organized military structure
They did not just randomly show up if they felt like it
No, they did not always train together. Let me quote something for you that illustrates a better perspective on how people got recruited into the militia:
"One of the most colorful examples is what happened in a staid Lutheran church in the Shenandoah valley of Virginia, one Sunday morning in 1775. The thirty year old pastor, Peter Muhlenberg, delivered a stirring sermon on the text, "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven." (Ecclesiastes 3 : 1)
He reached the end of his sermon and said in a solemn prayer - and then continued to speak, "In the language of the Holy Writ, there is a time for all things. There is a time to preach and a time to fight." He paused, and then threw off his pulpit robe to reveal to the startled congregation the uniform of a Colonel in the Continental Army. "And now is the time to fight!" he thundered and then he called out, Roll the drums for recruits!" The drums rolled, and that same afternoon he marched off at the head of a column of three hundred men."
- an excerpt from the book The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and David Manuel p. 291
Guess YOU must have been sleeping. I have several history books with similar accounts from all over the colonies. Your posts are way out of context. Lists of weapons and men were made AFTER the volunteers entered service and the government kept track of the government's weapons, but not those of volunteers until they were in the field.
Militia and Continentals - Journal of the American Revolution
All able-bodied men between sixteen and sixty were required to serve. Each had to keep a musket, bullets and powder ready to repel an attack by the French or Indians. The militia was a kind of standing home army that met on training days to stay acquainted with handling guns and performing military maneuvers.
The minutemen were an elite group of militiamen who met and trained hard in the sixteen months between the Boston Tea Party and the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775. Many people, including members of the Continental Congress, have confused them with ordinary militiamen. The latter never approached the minutemen’s state of battle readiness. As a result the militia performed disastrously in the opening years of the Revolution
Link?And their weapons were not registered. They showed up with anything they hadA militia where nobody knows who is in it or what weapons are available to defend the security of our free state is not ordered or disciplined
I guess it's a good thing the colonists didn't subscribe to your thinking. They all just showed up with the weapons trained and fought together and it worked pretty well.
You kinda slept when they taught about the Revolutionary War didn't you?
Minute Men trained, they were known in their community, they had an organized military structure
They did not just randomly show up if they felt like it
Local militias kept records of who belonged, rank and their weapons
Type of weapon was needed for logistics and supply
And what if a person wasn't in a militia? His weapons were not registered as you would want them to be
In the civilian militia each member was to maintain his weapon at his own expense I would think that included ammunition
So what?Link?And their weapons were not registered. They showed up with anything they hadI guess it's a good thing the colonists didn't subscribe to your thinking. They all just showed up with the weapons trained and fought together and it worked pretty well.
You kinda slept when they taught about the Revolutionary War didn't you?
Minute Men trained, they were known in their community, they had an organized military structure
They did not just randomly show up if they felt like it
Local militias kept records of who belonged, rank and their weapons
Type of weapon was needed for logistics and supply
And what if a person wasn't in a militia? His weapons were not registered as you would want them to be
In the civilian militia each member was to maintain his weapon at his own expense I would think that included ammunition
at the time the 2nd was written, there weren't standing armies.... and the worst weapon was a musket or cannon.... not an automatic weapon with a clip with 100 shots in it.
So what?Link?And their weapons were not registered. They showed up with anything they hadYou kinda slept when they taught about the Revolutionary War didn't you?
Minute Men trained, they were known in their community, they had an organized military structure
They did not just randomly show up if they felt like it
Local militias kept records of who belonged, rank and their weapons
Type of weapon was needed for logistics and supply
And what if a person wasn't in a militia? His weapons were not registered as you would want them to be
In the civilian militia each member was to maintain his weapon at his own expense I would think that included ammunition
at the time the 2nd was written, there weren't standing armies.... and the worst weapon was a musket or cannon.... not an automatic weapon with a clip with 100 shots in it.
Do you think that the constitution only protects rights as they were exercised in the 18th century?
If you do then you should expect no privacy when you use a computer because computers and digital information didn't exist then either. You better get all your shit out of the cloud and copy it all on parchment paper with a quill and ink,
I don't want "Democrats" or "liberals" to be the ones crafting responsible legislation that covers the 2A.
I want PEOPLE, people from all corners of the spectrum, to work together to craft such legislation.
The NRA deems any and all legislation to be an attack on the amendment, and until we can work past that impasse, it is impossible for conservatives and liberals to even have a sane conversation on the subject.
Guns are here to stay, folks. There's 320 million of them out there, thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to make them just go away. So we're going to have to learn to live civilly amongst those 320 million guns.
As more and more mass murders of innocent civilians make headlines, living civilly is very unlikely. As long as we continue to experience stress when boarding a plane, going to a sporting event or concert, or even going into a public building to do one's civic duty as a jurist, we well continue to be reminded that we do not live in a civil society.
More people are killed by rental trucks than by mass public shooters....
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation
Rental Truck in Nice, France, 86 murdered 456 injured, in 5 minutes...
Total number murdered in mass public shootings by year...
2016......71
2015......37
2014..... 9
2013..... 36
2012..... 72
2011..... 19
2010....9
2009...39
2008...18
2007...54
2006...21
2005...17
2004...5
2003...7
2002...not listed by mother jones
2001...5
2000...7
1999...42
1998...14
1997...9
1996...6
1995...6
1994....5
1993...23
1992...9
1991...35
1990...10
1989...15
1988...7
1987...6
1986...15
1985...(none listed)
1984...28
1983 (none listed)
1982...8
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
Cars, Accidental deaths 2013......35,369
Poisons...accidental deaths 2013....38,851
Alcohol...accidental deaths 2013...29,001
gravity....accidental falling deaths 2013...30,208
Accidental drowning.....3,391
Accidental exposure to smoke, fire and flames.....2,760
--LOLGun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment
no it is not
--LOL
the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at
after brits came for the armories and powder houses
A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....
How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)
and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.
and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.
fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.
you might also want to read this.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
I never buy guns from anyone other than a dealer.From a private party?
But in many states it is illegal to privately sell a firearm to anyone not legally eligible to buy one.
This is and remains a state issue
Winner, winner Chicken Dinner!
There you have it. A straw buyer can buy from a gun dealer then sell it on the private market
This is a loophole you can drive a truck through
What part of in many states it is illegal to do just that did you not understand?
And you don't seem to realize a straw purchase is already a federal crime.
Some states?
Another loophole
Why not require background checks on ALL purchases and be done with it?
Because that requires gun registration.....and Hawaii is now confiscating guns...that their citizens registered in good faith......they are using the registration lists to confiscate guns from people with legal, medical marijuana cards......registration is always followed by confiscation...as we have seen in Germany, Britain, Australia, New York, California, Canada, and now Hawaii....
There was no government registration of weapons.
And yet despite absence of said federal registration there was indeed plenty of local registration of weapons, by municipalities, by local law enforcement, by counties.
The Constitution actually granted the federal government considerable power over the state militias, such as power to arm and discipline them and to call them into federal service to repel invasions or suppress insurrections. During the Revolutionary war militias played a steadily decreasing role due to their unreliability, and thus the Continental Army had to be created in order to win the war.
We almost lost the War of 1812 because we again seemed doomed to repeat the mistakes of dependence on state militias.
State militias are there to defend states, not overthrow them.
In reading the entire thread I get the impression that all this fear actually borders on hysteria.
I give the NRA full credit for most of that.
Look at all the references to communism.
As if universal background checks or gun permits will usher in some kind of dictatorship.
Is Switzerland a communist dictatorship? Nearly all Swiss households are mandated to keep and bear arms but all of them are registered, too.
The imperfection does not lie in either our 2A or in the drive to register weapons. The imperfection lies in our current inability to sway ourselves from purist dogma on all sides, and seek healthy compromise, not only through reasoned debate but also through the system of checks and balances enshrined in our representative democracy.
Distortion of all the above comes from extremist positions, not from the center.
If the center cannot hold, then the falcon cannot hear the falconer.
--LOLGun Registration is encouraged in the Second Amendment
no it is not
--LOL
the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at
after brits came for the armories and powder houses
A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....
How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
and Hawaii is now confiscating guns...that their citizens registered in good faith......they are using the registration lists to confiscate guns from people with legal, medical marijuana cards......registration is always followed by confiscation...as we have seen in Germany, Britain, Australia, New York, California, Canada, and now Hawaii....
--LOL
no it is not
--LOL
the idea behind the second is you never know who has a firearm or where they are at
after brits came for the armories and powder houses
A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....
How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)
and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.
and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.
fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.
you might also want to read this.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.
Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
Another court ruling went further in their ruling:
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..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. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.
Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.
Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.
The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:
"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.
The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.
A well organized militia, being necessary for the security of a free state....
How can our nation be secure if we don't know who has guns, what types and how many?
A well regulated militia depends on it
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)
and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.
and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.
fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.
you might also want to read this.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.
Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
Another court ruling went further in their ruling:
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..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. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.
Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.
Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.
The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:
"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.
The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.
Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.
And that is how every Justice of the Supreme Court saw the 2nd amendment until Scalia.
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Chief Justice Joseph Story (appointed by founding father James Madison, second president of the United States)
and not binding law since our courts don't make rulings where there is no "case and controversy". Story's intent was also to support a strong federal government and show why it was much better than the articles of confederation. It should be noted that at the time story wrote, you'll find we had no standing army. all there were... were militias. that is why the 2nd is very clear that it applies to "Well regulated milita" and not to yahoo's with guns who want to fight off the government.
and if guns were to fight off "rulers", the only crime set forth in the constitution wouldn't be treason.
until scalia, the 2nd was never believed to be an individual right. in fact, chief justice warren laughed his butt off when such a thing was suggested.
fwiw, I don't believe he ever authored a 2nd amendment case, but his opinion when asked was that the representation of the 2nd as an individual right, and not the right of a well-regulated militia, was a fraud.
you might also want to read this.
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
First, as far as I'm concerned, the NRA is left of center on gun rights.
Story gave an opinion consistent with the founding fathers intent. As per your other allegation, it is equally false:
“The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
Another court ruling went further in their ruling:
“By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) -
“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
So, the government did not create those rights NOR do they grant them. Your unalienable Rights do not depend upon the government for their existence. The earliest court decisions confirmed this principle. Let me use the Right to keep and bear Arms as an example. The right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Liberty AND the Right to Life. Let’s view your Rights in light of court decisions:
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth (1822). The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..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. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is absolute. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an unalienable Right.
Sorry, but the earliest Court decisions don't uphold your misunderstanding of the law. Neither did the founders, who wrote and ratified the Constitution support your view.
Even in the Miller decision (1939) by the United States Supreme Court, the Court the only reason the Justices had a problem with Miller is due to the fact that his privately held shotgun had a short barrel and the Court said it was not a weapon normally used by a militia.
The most recent case decided by the Supreme Court was MacDonald v. City of Chicago. According to Wikipedia:
"... in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)."
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
There are a host of things anti-gunners conveniently avoid and one was a state court decision (from a state supreme court) in the Bliss decision in their interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Bliss decision said the Second Amendment was absolute and unqualified (cited above) Chief Justice Story was alive when that ruling was handed down. IF the people had felt the Constitution did not mean what the Bliss court ruled, they could easily have appealed the decision to the federal courts. Obviously they didn't... and nobody appealed the rulings in places like Texas and Georgia (or if they did, the Court would not even entertain hearing such challenges.) So, if you have state court rulings and no federal challenges, those decisions are binding in their home state AND persuasive authority in other states; therefore, lawyers might not advise a challenge since the law is pretty cut and dried.
The only things that are different today is that the American Bar Association is the most liberal organization in the United States and, for the most part, if you aren't a member in good standing, you probably won't be picked to be a judge. So, today it's liberals trying to reinvent the wheel and overturn standing legal precedents set by the Supreme Court itself (aka legislating from the bench.) Outside of that, the earliest courts, the founding fathers, and we, the people disagreed - across the board - with these liberal interpretations that don't hold water when closely examined.
Read Scalia's opinion in Heller and get back to us.
I can quote from memory much of Scalia's "opinion."
Now, had you read the posts in this thread before responding, I said two things:
1) There is good and bad in Scalia's opinion AND
2) America is being governed by two separate and distinct governments - the legal (de jure) / lawful constitutional Republic and an illegal / unconstitutional Federal - Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
As such, the Heller decision acknowledges that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms and that is an individual Right - unconnected to service in a militia. That is part of the HOLDING of the case.
Since you're being a smart ass with me, I know you don't understand court decisions. A lot of what you read in court opinions is opinions, B.S. / aka "dicta." The bottom line to Heller is what I quoted - the HOLDING, what the law is outside all the other B.S.
ANOTHER thing that the Heller decision says has nothing to do with the facts of this thread, but we can all agree, I know what you're crowing about. So, let's quote it:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose...For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."
That has zip, zero, nada to do with obtaining a firearm, carrying it, owning it or having a Right to the firearm unconnected to service in a militia. Go back to the United States Supreme Court holding in the 1939 Miller decision. The only reason Miller had a problem is due to the fact that the Court erroneously thought a sawed off shotgun wasn't a normal arm carried by a militia. Magazine fed weapons today constitute weapons "in common use" as acknowledged in the Heller decision when citing Miller in Scalia's ruling.
and Hawaii is now confiscating guns...that their citizens registered in good faith......they are using the registration lists to confiscate guns from people with legal, medical marijuana cards......registration is always followed by confiscation...as we have seen in Germany, Britain, Australia, New York, California, Canada, and now Hawaii....
So stop blaming gun registration and take responsibility for stupid laws like the "MEDICAL MARIJUANA LAW" which is just a pussy's way of avoiding FULL legalization.
That ends the fed's ability to point the finger at medical users instantly.
When FORTY states finally legalize it, do you honestly think that the feds will be able to continue this nonsense?
And NO ONE is confiscating guns in California. Turner's gun shop is three miles away from me and I can go buy another gun right now if I want.
Turner's Outdoorsman
indeed the SC sent miller back to the lower courts to find out if Miller's shotgun was a weapon useful to the military
the question was never answered
that is a question these leftists would not want answered
indeed the SC sent miller back to the lower courts to find out if Miller's shotgun was a weapon useful to the military
the question was never answered
that is a question these leftists would not want answered
I guess those lower courts are all crawling with leftists.
indeed the SC sent miller back to the lower courts to find out if Miller's shotgun was a weapon useful to the military
the question was never answered
that is a question these leftists would not want answered
I guess those lower courts are all crawling with leftists.
The question asked was whether the shotgun was exclusively of use by and designed for the military. All guns CAN be useful to the military, even one which belonged to an enemy you just finished dispatching with your own issued weapon, if your issued weapon has suddenly jammed, or run out of ammo and more enemy soldiers are closing in on you.
But that wasn't the question as asked.
