Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden’s Federal Gun Control

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
What, precisely, is your point?
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,072
Reaction score
2,405
Points
325
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
What, precisely, is your point?
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
 

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
2,970
Reaction score
876
Points
140
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
So you're not disputing that the Second Amendment entails the people collectively and individually.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:

CrusaderFrank

Diamond Member
Joined
May 20, 2009
Messages
119,834
Reaction score
34,496
Points
2,220
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
Try Reading Rainbow. I know know what else to suggest.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
 

ThisIsMe

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2017
Messages
2,575
Reaction score
847
Points
210
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.

The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.

If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
I'm not sure on this, but, I don't think the supremacy clause means what you say it does.

There are constitutional powers delegated to congress in the 18 enumerated powers, and in THOSE constitutionally delegated powers, federal law is Supreme, but I don't think this act is meant to imply that federal law supercedes all state law.

If the supremacy clause overrode all other laws, then the inclusion of the 18 powers would have been pointless. It would also mean that the federal government could exert dictatorial powers over the entire nation should one party manage to wrestle power and find a way to keep it.

Thoughts?
 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
I see the Federalist Papers are foreign to you.
 

AFrench2

Diamond Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2021
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
2,357
Points
1,893
Location
Fort Worth, TX
So y'all are so far gone from actually governing, that y'all are just making up crayola bills for problems that aren't real and signing them, 'eh?
 
OP
Billy_Kinetta

Billy_Kinetta

Paladin of the Lost Hour
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2013
Messages
51,815
Reaction score
20,452
Points
2,280
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.

The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.

If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
I'm not sure on this, but, I don't think the supremacy clause means what you say it does.

There are constitutional powers delegated to congress in the 18 enumerated powers, and in THOSE constitutionally delegated powers, federal law is Supreme, but I don't think this act is meant to imply that federal law supercedes all state law.

If the supremacy clause overrode all other laws, then the inclusion of the 18 powers would have been pointless. It would also mean that the federal government could exert dictatorial powers over the entire nation should one party manage to wrestle power and find a way to keep it.

Thoughts?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
- 10th Amendment
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary to the security of our free States and therefore subject to the police power of a State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
So you're not disputing that the Second Amendment entails the people collectively and individually.

Thanks.
Not at all. The People are the Militia; you are either well regulated or unorganized. There is no one unconnected with the militia, only unconnected with the organized and well regulated militia, and therefore subject to the police power of a State as Indidividuals.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
Try Reading Rainbow. I know know what else to suggest.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You first. Well regulated militia have literal recourse to our Second Amendment not the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People.
 

danielpalos

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
65,524
Reaction score
3,356
Points
1,855
Location
Alta California, federalist.
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error. It cannot be an Individual right without ignoring the rules of construction or sacrificing the End to the Means. The several States can safely ignore those rulings and challenge them in that venue whenever necessary since the Court will have to explain why they ignored the rules of construction and sacrificed the End to the Means when they came up with their legal fallacy.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the End: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This is the Means: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The Means must be sacrificed to the End in any conflict of laws.
Sez you and you are disagreeing with the Constitution and the highest court in the land not to mention the People of the United States. Good luck with that.
We have a Tenth Amendment.

And, I am not disagreeing with our Constitution only an activist Court. There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights, prima facie.
The USSC-whose one and only job is to see that laws at all levels are Constitutional- has ruled otherwise. The 2nd Amendment is an individual Right as it was always intended to be. But you think you know better? Prove it.
Nothing but judicial activism not any true rendering of our supreme law of the land.

There are no Individual terms in our Second Amendment and it was never intended to be about Individual rights. Thus, it cannot be about Individual rights. It plainly and expressly states what is necessary to the security of our free States not anything about Individual rights.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of our free States not an Individual right to keep and bear Arms.
I see the Federalist Papers are foreign to you.
They are more foreign to You, otherwise you would have valid arguments instead of non-sequiturs which are usually considered fallacies.
 

9thIDdoc

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2011
Messages
7,072
Reaction score
2,405
Points
325
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)

Well, I was about to lace you up. You're just making stuff up and have no clue how very silly your claims are. But I see that Osiris-ODS straightened you out. See post #16.
I cited a State Constitution. All right wingers have is fallacy not any valid arguments.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
And all right wingers have is the US Constitution, clear USSC rulings and our own State Constitutions which may not read remotely like yours. I know mine doesn't and does in fact support the individual right to keep and bear arms. Why should anyone care what your State Constitution says especially since it has long been established rights granted by the US Constitution are NOT subject to infringement by State law or Federal law? It has been ruled that some reasonable local regulation is not counted as infringement but exactly where that line is drawn has yet to be determined.
 

Osiris-ODS

Platinum Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2019
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
1,190
Points
940
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
- supercedes federal law. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you people not understand? The federal government has no authority to regulate firearms. It is strictly a state matter within the limitations proscribed by the amendment itself, and the 14th.
Only Well Regulated militia of the United States have literal recourse to our Second Amendment when keeping and bearing Arms for the security of their State or the Union. The unorganized militia does not have literal recourse to our Second Amendment, as civil and individual Persons, who are subject to the police power of their State.

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
The USSC has ruled that the Right to Keep and bear arms is the Right of individual Americans just as is written in the Bill of Rights where the other Rights of individuals are listed. An explanation is not a limitation and a single individual can be a well regulated militia as show through long historical usage.
That ruling was in (legal) error.
It was not, nor was it a "new" ruling. It merely reiterated what was common knowledge until the mid-20th Century, when the Constitution came under express attack by the "Progressives" of the time, and the education system was primed to portray that then-current thinking as the same as that of the past.
Maybe in right wing fantasy.

This was common knowledge regarding the common law for the common defense:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
What's funny is you apparently don't understand English well enough to realize that the quote you posted contradicts your own argument, and supports the Supreme Court's holding in Heller. Look, I've got nothing against you dp. You seem nice enough and I'm usually entertained by your posts. But it's obvious that English is not your primary language, and that fact reveals itself quite patently every time you start trying to do an analysis of the language of the Constitution (which was written in the passive voice, making it hard enough for a native english-speaker to understand without significant study).
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
8,425
Reaction score
1,906
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Superfluous, but excellent.

The Arizona House passed a law to nullify federal gun control measures last last month, establishing the state as a Second Amendment sanctuary.

Arizona House Passes Law to Nullify Biden's Federal Gun Control - Big League Politics
Needless to say, this idiotic ‘law’ is un-Constitutional – it clearly violates Article VI.

The supremacy of Federal laws is a fact settled, accepted, and beyond dispute; the states and local jurisdictions are subject to Federal laws and the decisions of Federal courts (see Cooper v. Aaron (1958)).

Residents of the states and state and local lawmakers will obey and comply with all Federal laws – including Federal firearm regulatory measures.

If the residents of Arizona believe a given firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment, they’re at liberty to file suit in Federal court to seek to have that law overturned.
Wrong.
The basis for this law the belief that if states do not pass laws in areas they have specific superior jurisdiction, then federal government is allowed to act based on weaker jurisdiction, like the commerce clause or promoting domestic tranquility.
In this case a specific state law is needed, so that the federal government can not claim there is a void that required it to act. Federal laws only trump state law when there is equal jurisdiction. Since the 2nd amendment prohibits any federal jurisdiction, that is not the case here.

Article VI does not apply at all.
{...

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be Required as a Qualification To any Office or public Trust under the United States.[1]

...}

This has nothing to do with debt, treaties, or religious tests.

Federal laws are NOT and can NOT always be supreme because the states, municipalities, and individuals often are explicitly given superior jurisdiction directly by the Constitution.
Federal laws are only supreme when the constitution explicitly says so.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top