You’re the one using euphemisms to justify selling firearms without a background check.
The government has NO AUTHORITY to require any American to undergo a background check as a prerequisite to exercising an
unalienable Right guaranteed under the Bill of Rights and specifically guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment.
Any "
search" (background check) as a prerequisite to exercising any Right is unreasonable by any metric. If you disagree, try applying your suggestion to any other
unalienable Right you have.
So there should be no barrier to a 5 year old buying an Uzi? Or do rights have limits?
Is a five year old mature enough to depart from his father's house and build up his own family?
No. But then again, that stipulation isn’t in the 2nd Amendment. So rights have limits…correct?
Of course, but now we are getting to the heart of the matter and the reason for the 2nd. It did not grant the right. It simply prohibited the federal government from infringing, without exception. Any federal gun law that limits or proscribes in any way the right of individuals to keep and bear arms is infringement.
States HAD the authority to limit the right...until the clumsy, poorly considered 14th Amendment came along. Now ANY government action is infringement.
Instead of fixing the constitutional **** ups, our lawmakers are circumventing the constitution.
This is unacceptable and worthy of war.
.
I have a legal argument for the left:
“
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)
According to Wikipedia:
"
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)
That is the law as I know it. Now, you I know that is not the law, however. The question is, how did the law get changed? That is elementary. The United States Supreme Court simply kept rehearing the same cases over and over, changing their rulings. The Constitution only allows the United States Supreme Court to interpret the law.
They don't get to keep reinterpreting it. That is legislating from the bench. Every ruling that contradicts the
FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings is ultra vires - null and void in our constitutional Republic.
George Washington, our first president, warned against this practice and told you the consequences thereof:
"
If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES
James Madison, our second president, wrote:
"
The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessings of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood: if they be repealed or revised before they are promulg[at]ed, or undergo such incessant changes, that no man who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be tomorrow. "
This is exactly the situation that happened when the United States Supreme Court began reversing their own decisions. We obey the law to the letter, but without warning, our nation's highest Court changes the laws. WTH? They change law, the original intent, and now, the high Court is claiming they dole out our Rights. So, I'm simply obeying the de jure law and if you want to change the Second Amendment, amend the damn thing.
