The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

[bendog]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Go fuck yourself with a stick asshole. I put up links earlier.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Article II & III have no authority over firearms...Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction over arms???? Seems to me you're under educated to a great degree.

What did Jefferson discover about the Courts in the 1820's...provide a reference, a link!

Where is your basis in law proving their is no authority to control/regulate ARMS in these here United States? Even a WELL REGULATED MILITIA has that authority, dipstick!

The A-Bomb, the UN, Japan? Now you're sounding like BOSS or RAMBOETTE runnin' out to the ozone layer and beyond. Are you wearing a pair of Political Chica's Space Panties thinking your ass is out of this world, too!

BTW, I'm not intimidated by your childish bombast or the large font you use or your advocacy toward guns to compensate for your diminished, err, ahh, manhood! You're a known quantity!

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


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."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

 

[bendog]

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


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."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

He's a jerk, but I think one can fairly contend that various gun regulations are inconsistent with what people would reasonably believed was not only permissible, but fairly widespread, at the time the Constitution and BoR were debated and ratified. And, Scalia did pretty much that in a readable way in Heller. And while one can find Scalia's views on social issues and mores to be questionable, and even his personal ethics, there's no dispute that he correctly perceives the justices primary duty of protecting individual rights against govt intrusion.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it?

 

[bendog]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it?

Aren't you desperately trying to avoid the facts of what gun regulation occurred at the time the Const and BoR were ratified? LOL

 

[Contumacious]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Go fuck yourself with a stick asshole. I put up links earlier.

EXACTLY.



I KNEW THAT YOU COULD NOT PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS NOR

IDENTIFY ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO DEMONSTRATING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AUTHORIZED FEDGOV TO REGULATE FIREARMS.

 

[Contumacious]

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


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."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

YOU MUST BE A FEDERAL JUDGE, RIGHT? OR IS IT JUST AN IGNORASS? WELL, SAME DIFFERENCE.

Thomas Jefferson on Judicial Tyranny


SCOTUS FEDGOV HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS


MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE delivered the opinion of the court.


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."

United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)


NOW , YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT , APOLOGIZE


.

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

IT APPEARS THAT EITHER YOU ARE SLOW IN THE UPTAKE OR A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT


CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER ----NONE --- TO REGULATE FIREARMS.

FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE ANY LAW - REGULATING FIREARMS - ENACTED BY CONGRESS NULL AND VOID.


.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

He's a jerk, but I think one can fairly contend that various gun regulations are inconsistent with what people would reasonably believed was not only permissible, but fairly widespread, at the time the Constitution and BoR were debated and ratified. And, Scalia did pretty much that in a readable way in Heller. And while one can find Scalia's views on social issues and mores to be questionable, and even his personal ethics, there's no dispute that he correctly perceives the justices primary duty of protecting individual rights against govt intrusion.

I agree with you to a point regarding Justice Scalia, but he does go out of his way to make NEW LAW at times, which is another topic for another time. I agree with Scalia's decision in Heller and believe the correct balance was struck.

Regarding Comotosius, I concur 100%

 

[bendog]

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

He's a jerk, but I think one can fairly contend that various gun regulations are inconsistent with what people would reasonably believed was not only permissible, but fairly widespread, at the time the Constitution and BoR were debated and ratified. And, Scalia did pretty much that in a readable way in Heller. And while one can find Scalia's views on social issues and mores to be questionable, and even his personal ethics, there's no dispute that he correctly perceives the justices primary duty of protecting individual rights against govt intrusion.

I agree with you to a point regarding Justice Scalia, but he does go out of his way to make NEW LAW at times, which is another topic for another time. I agree with Scalia's decision in Heller and believe the correct balance was struck.

Regarding Comotosius, I concur 100%

Oh yeah. Scalia doesn't even hide the fact that he just makes stuff up when it suits him.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused.

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

IT APPEARS THAT EITHER YOU ARE SLOW IN THE UPTAKE OR A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT


CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER ----NONE --- TO REGULATE FIREARMS.

FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE ANY LAW - REGULATING FIREARMS - ENACTED BY CONGRESS NULL AND VOID.


.

I'm neither slow nor masochistic! Holding a mirror to your face and proclaiming to the world the vision you see is vile, is part of your delusional illness. That can be solved through therapy and your ignorance is also curable with a medication called KNOWLEDGE!

Your penance my Son is 40 Hail Mary's, 20 Our Father's and 10 Rosaries!

 

[bendog]

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREAMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

Yup, you are confused. That list of statutes is part of my post to Little_Acorn's post #159 that you can read in my post # 160. My last post to you was #244 where I wrote to you in the last line, "No need to apologize. I know you were confused." Trying to really avoid that post, eh? You too damn poor to pay attention, Smack?

REPEATING


YOU ARE POSTING TO THE WRONG GUY;

I HAVE NEVER CLAIMED THAT ANY OF THESE LAWS ARE CONSTITUTIONAL


"1. National Firearms Act - 1934
2. Federal Firearms Act - 1938
3. Gun Control Act - 1968
4. Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act - 1986
5. Firearms Owners' Protection Act - 1986
6. Crime Control Act - 1990
7. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - 1994
8. Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act - 1994


AND SINCE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO AUTHORITY TO REGULATE FIREARMS SCALIA COULDN'T HAVE POSSIBLY BEING REFERRING TO ANY OF THEM.


.

So you are flat refusing to reply to the post I sent previously because it puts the lie to your assertions that Congress and SCOTUS are powerless and without authority to regulate or employ judicial review toward any gun control measures! AND for the record again, I never sent you that list of gun control laws, DIPSTICK! You cherry picked that from my post to Little-Acorn!

I'm going to post what I sent you yet AGAIN you imply you never received. Lets see if you have the stomach, the courage to respond to it this time, and admit your error! Man up cowboy, or are you another gun nut that's all hat and no cattle?

*******************************************************************************
My post #244 in response to your post 232:

Oh that Jefferson thingy! He was still pissed when he wrote that about Marbury v. Madison and what C.J. Marshall did through judicial review. If you wish to understand the genesis of judicial review, read the Constitution then Federalist # 78. Madison did a great job of explaining it and what was discussed and understood at the Constitutional Convention.

No need for me to apologize, but the same cannot be said for you even though I never expect that from most folks! Those older cases tend to be clarified down the road just as the one you quoted above; U.S. v. Cruikshank. That passage was clarified by none other than Justice Anton Scalia in DC v. Heller. first I cite from the decision in Heller what J. Scalia opined regarding the applicability of Amendment II then follow that up with his direct reference to Cruikshank.

"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. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." [Emphasis Added] < DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute >

Then J. Scalia wrote the following with reference to US v. Cruikshank, in the same decision, the following at section E"

"United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, in the course of vacating the convictions of members of a white mob for depriving blacks of their right to keep and bear arms, held that the Second Amendment does not by its own force apply to anyone other than the Federal Government. The opinion explained that the right “is not a right granted by the Constitution [or] in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment … means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
[Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

That was affirmed in later cases ; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265 - (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U. S. 535, 538 - (1894)

In the Syllabus of Heller is the following at 1. (f). Read it closely esp. the reference to Miller:

" None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54." [Emphasis Added] < Ibid >

First you assert repeatedly that Congress and SCOTUS have no power to do what you are now claiming they do have. Shit, make up your mind which side you are going to come down on and stay! Now read what those citations have to say and see if you can figure out that the National government has the responsibility and duty to do. Pay close attention to US v. Miller as underlined.

No need to apologize. I know you were confused

*******************************************************************************
They say the third time is a charm...Is that true, or are you the exception to the rule?

IT APPEARS THAT EITHER YOU ARE SLOW IN THE UPTAKE OR A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT


CONGRESS HAS NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER ----NONE --- TO REGULATE FIREARMS.

FEDERAL COURTS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE ANY LAW - REGULATING FIREARMS - ENACTED BY CONGRESS NULL AND VOID.


.

I'm neither slow nor masochistic! Holding a mirror to your face and proclaiming to the world the vision you see is vile, is part of your delusional illness. That can be solved through therapy and your ignorance is also curable with a medication called KNOWLEDGE!

Your penance my Son is 40 Hail Mary's, 20 Our Father's and 10 Rosaries!

Responding to that guy is masochism.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Perhaps, but it can be fun playing with an ignorant know-it-all.

 

[bendog]

Perhaps, but it can be fun playing with an ignorant know-it-all.

Whatever. I don't think he's a know it all so much as he doesn't want to know nothing other than what he wants to know for no good reason. LOL

 

[FA_Q2]

or they are a retired police officer, or they know someone in the Department (the celebrity exception) or they can define a set risk.

If i go to NYPD and apply for a CCW, and give the reason "because it is my constitutional right under the 2nd amendment) they will deny it in a heartbeat.

Then why did you pony up $500?

I have not tried to get a CCW, much like I have not had the need for my 4th amendment rights. I should be able to get one, however, if I so choose, and do it without having to jump through hoops to do it.

And pay $500 for the permit.

$500 is ridiculous for a gun permit, and that is only for in house possession.

It's absurd to deny there is a basis in colonial history for regulating what types of arms may be owned, and how they must be stored, but I have never understood why NYC's regulation on simple ownership for in home defense hasn't been overturned.

It is odd but the reality is that the court system makes it very challenging to address unconstitutional infringement of your rights. It takes a really long time to go through the process and a LOT of money. Even then, get the wrong appeals judges and bad lower court judges and it makes it almost impossible.

The system is fundamentally broken but that is for another thread.

 

[FA_Q2]

Our biggest problem with firearms? People that shouldn't have them, laws don't stop these cretins from obtaining guns. And nothing short of a overall ban WILL prevent pointless gun violence.We need to rescind the second amendment. Whatever it takes. I know something is wrong when I hear automatic weapons or find bullets in my property, let alone someone shooting innocent preschoolers. Enough is enough.

Except that will not work to make you any safer whatsoever. This has been shown time and time again. The evidence is solid - gun bans do not curb homicide rates. That is simply a fact.

You might 'feel' safer but that is about it and, quite frankly, how you feel is irrelevant to my rights. You do not get to limit or remove a right simply because you don't like the fact it exists.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Go fuck yourself with a stick asshole. I put up links earlier.

EXACTLY.



I KNEW THAT YOU COULD NOT PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS NOR

IDENTIFY ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO DEMONSTRATING THAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS AUTHORIZED FEDGOV TO REGULATE FIREARMS.

You cannot provide a historical prohibition or any Constitutional proviso that the Founding Fathers did not authorize me to probe your nether regions with the 21' saguaro cactus I have in my front yard either, IDIOT!

The historical fact of judicial review that the Founders intended was presented to in Federalist #78, but you paid no attention to the multiple references and claimed SCOTUS was powerless to review cases involving gun control legislation. YOU WERE IN ERROR AND ARE STILL IN ERROR! You're an IDIOT!

The Constitution is replete with examples of the extent of Congressional powers in Article I and those Judicial powers judicial review in Article III, but you paid no attention to the multiple references and continued claiming Congress had not been authorized to pass gun control legislation and SCOTUS was impotent also. YOU WERE IN ERROR AND ARE STILL IN ERROR! You're an IDIOT!

One last thing! Did I mention that you're an IDIOT? And have a nice day...

 

[Little-Acorn]

Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead? It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it?

Aren't you desperately trying to avoid the facts of what gun regulation occurred at the time the Const and BoR were ratified? LOL

TRANSLATION: You got me. I still can't find anything in the Constitution that gives the government any authority to regulate firearms, even a little bit. All I can do is change the subject yet again, and talk about various lawmakers violating it, and act like that makes it constitutional.

 

[regent]

Is the second amendment the only amendment that gives a reason for its existence? If the reason is no longer needed is the amendment still valid?

 

[Contumacious]

So, the real question is whether the inconvenience to you or me in having to put up with a check is outweighed by the possible benefit

No, the real question is the one asked in the OP.

The Framers wrote many exceptions and conditions into many of the Amendments. But they carefully left them out of the 2nd. Why?

And the OP pointed out that the only group with the authority to make exceptions to the 2nd, are juries.

I know you are trying hard to fool people into thinking the Framers didn't mean what they wrote. But you continue to fail to justify this idea.

The Framers didn't say firearms could not be regulated. They were regulated by States and local govts at the time the Constitution was ratified. Possibly you might try to argue the Fed Govt may not do so, but probably not under modern interpretation of fed power.

PROVIDE HISTORICAL FACTS AND/OR

IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISO UPON WHICH RELIED BY ARTICLE, SECTION AND CLAUSE.


.

Are the liberals still frantically changing the subject away from what the 2nd amendment says, and trying to talk about what judges and lawyers say instead?

It's so easy to tell when they can't refute the point of the OP, isn't it?

YES, INDEED , the fascists are still frantically changing the subject away from what the Constitution, the 2nd and 9th Amendments say. , and yes they are trying to talk about what "judges" and lawyers say instead.

 

[RKMBrown]

The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?

The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.

The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".

Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."

But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.

Why?

There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.

To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.

Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.

Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.

So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?

Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.

The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.

So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?

It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.

But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.

And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.

Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?

Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.

My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.

The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.

The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.

So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".

But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.

I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.

Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.

Why? Because said limitations were reserved to the states or the people.