Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Try and read that document sometimes, Dub. Cities passing anti-gun laws are specifically enumerated in the constitution itself.
|
This is only correct in the sense that every court has been scared shitless of applying the 14th amendment to the 2nd.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
The Second Amendment:
"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."
'the people' are the collective of the state.
|
As well as the individual right. The 'people' are you, me, and uncle bob down the road. The collective right is pure invention by an antigun judiciary.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
It applies to the Federal Government only. It has been repeatedly affirmed through the Supreme Court that the Second Ammendment is meant to keep the regulation of firearms to the state and local level. NOT that the possession thereof is an inalienable right.
|
except for the 14th AND let us not forget that the 14th was specifically added because southern states refused to acknowledge that negros now had inalienable rights as well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
U.S. Supreme Court rulings:
United States v. Cruikshank (1876)- States and local government may enact their own gun control laws. The 2nd only forbids the Congress from infringing gun rights.
|
A decision that was used to circumvent the 14th by sympathetic judges to southern states to oppress the freedoms and rights of negros.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Presser v. Illinois (1886)- Reaffirmed the states rights to control guns.
|
You MUST read the entire decision, not just the part that affirms your stance, especially when taken out of context.
“The provision in the Second Amendment to the Constitution, that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,’ is a limitation only on the power of Congress and the national government, and not of the States. But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers,
the States cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security.”
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
United States v. Miller (1939)- Decided individuals have no right to arms under the amendment. But "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia."
|
The single most misinterpreted decision on the 2nd. Miller ONLY decided that militia type weapons were protected, such as machine guns, but interspersed within the opinion was the statement of
Individuals appearing with their personally owned weapons"
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Morton Grove, Illinois, passed similar law banning handguns from the general populace in the 1980's. The town was sued on Second Amendment grounds and the Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the ordinance WAS valid, and that there was no individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment. In October 1983, the SCOTUS turned down the appeal to hear on this ruling. They allowed the lower court rulings to stand.
|
Part of an increasing tyrannical judiciary, instigated by the FDR admin, to disarm, and render ineffective, any resistance to his unconstitutional new deal programs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Superbelt
Not that I would ever WANT my state or locality to ban handguns in and of themselves. But the fact of the matter is, the constitution allows it.
|
No, the constitution says 'shall not be infringed'. It's only due to a judiciary system that is more inclined to add powers to the government than it is to preserve the rights of the people. All of the circuit courts, as well as district courts opining 'collective rights', are flat out wrong. It's a refusal to actually follow the history and scholarly facts of the individual rights championed by the drafters of the constitution.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I would venture to argue the Interstate Commerce Clause impacts us on a day-to-day basis as much as, if not more than, any other part of the constitution.
|
The commerce clause is abused and violated as much as the supremacy clause is. It impacts our lives on a daily basis because we've had a USSC that has rarely (only once that I'm aware of) denied legislation from congress as going outside of the bounds of interstate commerce.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Maybe it does (and I'm inclined to agree with you on that), but the issue that it would was settled long ago. How many times a session does SCOTUS cite the ICC in a ruling? Once?
|
Which should really get people to thinking about how appropo is 'stare decisis', especially when it exceeds the authority of congress.