Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
Since the Second Amendment right "to keep and bear arms" applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right of an individual to possess a firearm. . .
—United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103.
A fundamental right to keep and bear arms has not been the law for 100 years...Cases have analyzed the second amendment purely in terms of protecting state militias rather than individual rights.
—United States v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318
In short, the Second Amendment does not imply any general constitutional right for individuals to bear arms and form private armies.
—Vietnamese Fishermen's Association v. Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 543 F. Supp. 198
The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art I, Sec 8, cl 15, 16, of the Constitution.
—Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41
The question has been faced by several states. State constitutions which provide to the 'people' the right to keep and bear arms for the common defence do not necessarily grant individuals that same right. The right is not directed to guaranteeing individual ownership or possession of weapons.
—Rabbit v. Leonard, 413 A. 2d 489
This court is unaware of a single case which has upheld a right to bear arms under the Second Amendment to the Constitution, outside of the context of a militia.
—Thompson v. Dereta, 549 F. Supp. 297
Even as against the United States, furthermore, the Second Amendment protects not an individual right but a collective right, in the people as a group, to serve as a militia.
—In Re Application of Atkinson, 291 N.W.2d 396
|
Through a series of liberal judicial activist decisions, the courts have effectively rewritten the constitution, including Art. 1, sec 10, paragraph 3 to wit "No state shall, without the consent of congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or ships of war in time of peace...."
Clearly, the constitution specifically states that the states themselves shall not have state troops, yet are very clearly given the right to keep state troops because of the 2nd Amendment.....ok, i'm dizzy now.
So, how does one reconcile within themselves that it's ok for judicial tyrannists to supercede the written constitution with judicial decisions and bypass the clearly written and detailed steps of amending the constitution as well as ignoring the definition of the various militia types in the militia code of the US laws.
I also would like someone to explain to me how congress HAS to use the commerce clause to regulate firearms if the 2nd Amendment does not refer to the right of an individual. One should be able to conclude that if there is no right to keep and bear arms, then a regular old punitive law, that has nothing to do with commerce regulation, could be implemented to ban firearms yet that is not the case.