Next question....why does anyone want to own an AK47 or whatever they are called? For what purpose? To just blow stuff up?
An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a
POLICE STATE.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional
AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.
BTW, I did not say the government lacks the
power. They don't have the
AUTHORITY to enforce anti-gun laws.
“An AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, etc. etc. are used to insure [sic] the security of a Free State. If only the police and military owned these weapons, you would have a POLICE STATE.”
Nonsense.
Conservatives need to stop trying to ‘justify’ the possession of an AK, AR, M1A, SCAR, FN FAL, and other like rifles and carbines by claiming they facilitate the ‘preservation’ of a ‘free state’ – when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Again, there’s nothing in Second Amendment jurisprudence in support of insurrectionist dogma, nothing that supports the wrongheaded notion that citizens have a ‘right’ to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected government through force of arms subjectively and incorrectly perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’
Whether or not the possession of an AR 15 is within the scope of Second Amendment protections will ultimately be decided by the courts; but regardless how the courts might rule, the possession of an AR 15 has nothing to do with ensuring the security of a free state.
“The Right to keep and bear Arms is a preexisting Right (meaning the Right predates the Constitution.) The legislatures have no legal / lawful / constitutional AUTHORITY to require licenses, permits, registration, etc. of these weapons because the Right to keep and bear Arms exists separately and independently from the Constitution.”
Wrong.
Government has both the power and authority to require licenses, permits, registration, and any other firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment case law.
Our rights are indeed inalienable, but they are not ‘absolute,’ including the Second Amendment right. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
And government has the authority to enact laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.
The moment you used the word
"inalienable" was a dead giveaway that
you not qualified to debate this issue. I have a standard answer that uses court holdings to refute everything you've said. Let us begin:
“
By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
“
The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
“
Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
Can you see that connection between absolute and unalienable?
Now, let's shift gears. BEFORE a statute or a constitutional principle is settled, it goes through a process. It may start at the state level or the federal level, but no matter what the issue, it starts in lower courts and is appealed. Unless and / or until the United States Supreme Court weighs in, whatever the decision is, in the highest court it reaches determines whether or not it is law. For example, in Georgia, Nunn v. Georgia is persuasive authority in all federal appeals courts. It is THE law in Georgia unless and until a federal appeals court strikes it down - then it is subject to being heard by the United States Supreme Court. It is persuasive authority in all other courts - which means the judges have to at least look at the reasoning. So, let us follow the Second Amendment and give you the bare bones:
"
The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
“
The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"
The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-
Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
“
The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
Only 33 years after the ratification of the Constitution of the United States, the states began litigating the Second Amendment AND the Right to keep and bear Arms. Every state decision was coming out the same way. The courts said the Right to keep and bear Arms is
absolute and then defined that word for you: it is synonymous with inherent, natural,
unalienable, and above the lawmaking process. Do you understand that word
absolute? The United States Supreme Court admitted that it did not grant nor create the Right and the Right was not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence.
The Right predates the Constitution.
So, there is a very sound case. Now, the United States Supreme Court only has the authority to interpret the Constitution, so when they violate their constitutional limitations, it is rare and done so that the public won't give a shit about HOW we got what the masses wanted, only that they got what wanted. So we went from an absolute, natural, inherent,
unalienable, and above the law Right (aka a God given Right) to this:
"
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited..."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Whoa, wait, what??? Like most rights? Then the United States Supreme Court is saying SOME of the Bill of Rights is unlimited, but not the Second Amendment? At what level does that make sense to you? Unless the United States Supreme Court got into the Rights granting business, that ruling would have been just cause for an internal civil war. If the United States Supreme Court has already ruled on a point of law, they are legislating from the bench to over-rule their own decisions. If they don't like the law, they should have to do what you and I do: petition legislators for a change in the law. But, again, how can SOME rights be unlimited and others not?
The Bill of Rights was one Bill and the standing precedent in the FIRST SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IS EXACTLY 180 DEGREES OPPOSITE OF DC V. HELLER.
The United States Supreme Court got some kind of new angle to gain power over you. Enter the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment created TWO classes of citizenship. BTW, don't waste bandwidth with your criticisms of that statement. I learned it in an accredited law school and can produce the textbook explaining the concept. Look at that Amendment carefully:
"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; laws."
Do you see the word Rights in the 14th Amendment? I sure as Hell do not. And that is ALL the 14th Amendment has to say other than to GRANT unspecified "privileges and "
immunities." Shall we continue?
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Persons" are guaranteed life, liberty and property along with due process along with the
equal protection of the laws."
I still ain't seeing no Rights there. Non-whites were NEVER guaranteed any Right. That is a FACT, son. It is not an opinion; it isn't hyperbole nor a conspiracy theory. Then we guaranteed life, liberty, and property to foreigners - as a grant; a gift; from Uncle Scam. Then, the courts began working to put everyone under the purview of the 14th Amendment so we all had "equal rights." In fact, we no longer had "rights," but we had equal rights.
https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm
Was the Fourteenth Amendment Constitutionally Adopted? | Abbeville Institute
http://www.americasremedy.com/pdf/Unconstitutionality-Perez.pdf
The Two United States and the Law
There you have it - from judges to historians and from legal researchers to seasoned legislators, the truth comes out. With
unalienable Rights gone, all we can do is lament the fact that we live under an illegal government. With no "
Rule of Law" you can screw the Constitution any way you like. I will rely on the
FIRST Supreme Court interpretations relative to the Right - and all the other decisions interpreting the Bill of Rights. AND, when the government begins trampling the Rights of too many people, they have just cause to resist tyranny. Legal, illegal, I don't give a shit. A lot of people will own firearms long after communist loving liberals criminalize every gun part and bullet in America.
The government has the
power to do some of the things you claim, but it damn well does not have the
authority. IF the patriots figure out the current government is an illegal / de facto / unconstitutional government, then all bets are off.
