Sat 28 May, 2011 11:11 am
I remember reading about this in January and it's still on the table.
Obama Administration Eyeing Gun Control 'Under the Radar,' Groups Warn
The Obama administration, after keeping gun control on the back burner for over two years, is prompting concern among gun rights groups that it's slowly starting to squeeze the trigger on tighter regulation.
@H2O MAN,
Well, the USSC has to resolve the whole thing.
The next issue is the right to
BEAR arms (outside the home, where u KEEP arms).
Next after that is tieing the right to defend your life and property
together with the right to travel thru out America.
David
I am encouraged by some of the things that the USSC has already declared in HELLER;
e.g. the USSC says the following:
In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.
Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:
“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,
and 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, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”
[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]
David
I shoud add tieing the right to bear arms
to the Constitutional requirement of EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS.
That means that no government in America has jurisdiction
to discriminate as to WHO can defend his or her life from predatory violence.
David
In the HELLER decision, the USSC went on to hold:
". . . We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right
is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.
* * * Putting all of these textual elements together,
we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation "
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
@H2O MAN,
It seems strange that it is legal to sell guns, but illegal to kill people with them... Where is the fun in that???
@OmSigDAVID,
David... The unfortunate problem with our government is that the most effective institution for making laws has become the one which should judge which laws are constitutional... Look at those folks; all graduates of Eastern Ivy league Law schools telling the rest of America what is right and wrong... They are everything that the Priests used to be in pagan society... They are nothing, and do nothing for all the weight they carry with the weak minded..
@Fido,
Fido wrote:It seems strange that it is legal to sell guns, but illegal to kill people
with them... Where is the fun in that???
It is not illegal to kill people with defensive guns if thay r used
correctly.
David
@Fido,
Fido wrote:David... The unfortunate problem with our government is that the most effective institution for making laws has become the one which should judge which laws are constitutional... Look at those folks; all graduates of Eastern Ivy league Law schools telling the rest of America what is right and wrong... They are everything that the Priests used to be in pagan society... They are nothing, and do nothing for all the weight they carry with the weak minded..
Fido, your confusions are too numerous & profound for me to attempt to
disentangle them all; hopeless & tedious.
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Fido wrote:David... The unfortunate problem with our government is that the most effective institution for making laws has become the one which should judge which laws are constitutional... Look at those folks; all graduates of Eastern Ivy league Law schools telling the rest of America what is right and wrong... They are everything that the Priests used to be in pagan society... They are nothing, and do nothing for all the weight they carry with the weak minded..
Fido, your confusions are too numerous & profound for me to attempt to
disentangle them all; hopeless & tedious.
I would have guessed that was one point we might have agreed on... Clearly the right runs against the Supreme Court at every opportunity, and in the sense that it is totally unrepresentative of the people and beyond the reach of popular feeling, they are correct to do so... They are the most conservative body, impossible to change, and much bad law becomes the law of the land simply because congress and president will do what is popular- expecting the supreme court to knock it down as bad law, and the Supreme Court does not...
@Fido,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Fido wrote:David... The unfortunate problem with our government is that the most effective institution for making laws has become the one which should judge which laws are constitutional... Look at those folks; all graduates of Eastern Ivy league Law schools telling the rest of America what is right and wrong... They are everything that the Priests used to be in pagan society... They are nothing, and do nothing for all the weight they carry with the weak minded..
Fido, your confusions are too numerous & profound for me to attempt to
disentangle them all; hopeless & tedious.
Fido wrote:I would have guessed that was one point we might have agreed on...
Clearly the right runs against the Supreme Court at every opportunity,
That is false; it is heterogeneous n disparate.
When the USSC plays it
straight, with
no deviation, then we support it.
Fido wrote:and in the sense that it is totally unrepresentative of the people and beyond the reach of popular feeling, they are correct to do so...
I don 't mean to be rude, but it is
embarrassing when u agree with me.
I guess even a broken clock is right 2ice a day.
Fido wrote:They are the most conservative body, impossible to change, and much bad law becomes the law of the land simply because congress and president will do what is popular- expecting the supreme court to knock it down as bad law, and the Supreme Court does not...
That is true.
I remember that happening.
David
@OmSigDAVID,
No deviation from what... History, and our history has been a crooked line... How do you go straight on a crooked line??? That is why the military never says straight march... Some idiot would go straight into the ocean if there was one... There are a lot of reasons the Supreme Court has failed us... Even when it is too liberal for the right it is too elitist for all of us... What they giveth they can also take... What I am saying is that if the basic democracy is missing from your country then you must deal with law as an abstraction rather than a practical matter... It is in practical matters that our whole government fails us... They are great with ideological crap that affects no one... They can get elected on whose tough fist on commy nist, but the fact is that if our economy worked for us there would be no one asking for change... They win on ideology and fail on economy when it is the people who must suffer the failures of their economy...
@Fido,
Fido wrote:No deviation from what...
No deviation from the applicable law (be it the US Constitution or some statute).
David
From the USSC decision in HELLER:
" The right to bear arms has always
been the distinctive privilege of freemen.
Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person,
it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise
of a certain jurisdiction. . . . It was not necessary that the
right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution,
for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional
Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891).
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
From the USSC decision in HELLER:
" The right to bear arms has always
been the distinctive privilege of freemen.
Aside from any necessity of self-protection to the person,
it represents among all nations power coupled with the exercise
of a certain jurisdiction. . . . It was not necessary that the
right to bear arms should be granted in the Constitution,
for it had always existed.” J. Ordronaux, Constitutional
Legislation in the United States 241–242 (1891).
[All emfasis has been added by David.]
The court is wrong... To bear arms was, and has always been an obligation of a free people... Two things, for example were required of a serf who ran from his bondage to be free in a city: He must be able to remain free for a year and a day, and he must be able to bear arms, that is, to contribute to the defense of the city... It is technology, the ability of a few to kill a great many that makes the rich so fear the arms of the masses... They think they do not need us for their defense, and it is defense against us that they want to assure...
@Fido,
The American citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms for self protection.
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:
The American citizen has a constitutional right to bear arms for self protection.
That is very true; each of us does and all of us do.
The right of self-defense
IS the right to
LIVE.
Every American citizen has a Constitutional Right to "
equal protection of the laws"
David
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace