Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling: Good/Bad? Constitutional or not?

[malkusm]

Pertinent links/quotes:

The decision: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Summary of the decision at Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60446.html

U.S. Constitution, Article III., Section 2:


The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

U.S. Constitution, Article VI., 2nd & 3rd clause:


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

2nd 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.

10th Amendment:


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.

Anti-Federalist #84: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp84.html

Anti-Federalist #81: http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/afp81.html

"Is the McDonald Gun Decision Good for Liberty?" at Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60452.html

"The Second Amendment, the States, and the People" at The New American: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2603-the-second-amendment-the-states-and-the-people

"Partial Gun Rights Victory Could Have Other Implications: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3079-partial-gun-rights-victory-could-have-other-implications

SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

(Post other opinions and resources as you feel, I'd like to make this post as objective as possible.)

Choices are above, and feel free to debate the merits and practicalities of your decision.

ETA: Since the forum only allows poll choices to be 100 characters or less, my actual poll choices were going to be as follows:

A. It is a good thing - the rights of the citizens to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, by the federal government nor by the States.

B. It is a good thing, although I have reservations about the language used in the decision, as well as the implications for federalism & states' rights.

C. It is a bad thing - the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government, not the power of the states (even when states make bad decisions).

D. This case should not have come up before the Supreme Court, as it is a state case, not a federal one as listed in Article III, Section 2.

[slothman]

Unlike the 1st Amend. the 2nd doesn't say "Congress."
Therefore it applies to states as well.
I don't know if the 14th needs to be used in this case.
I also agree with the result.

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday in the ground-breaking case McDonald v. Chicago and is expected to incorporate Second Amendment rights against the states, though the strategy pursued by McDonald's lead attorney has received some criticism even from gun-rights supporters. by Alex Newman


Partial Gun Rights Victory Could Have Other Implications (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3079-partial-gun-rights-victory-could-have-other-implications)


Alex Newman | The New American (http://www.thenewamerican.com/)
05 March 2010


Analysts are predicting at least a partial victory for gun rights after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments (http://www.downrange.tv/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/transcript030210.pdf) Tuesday in McDonald v. Chicago, a case about the city’s draconian hand-gun ban that could have major implications for state and local firearm regulations across the nation. But even some supporters of the right to keep and bear arms have been critical of the strategy pursued.

Attorney Alan Gura, who argued against the ban on behalf of Otis McDonald and others, told the Supreme Court that it should strike down the unconstitutional hand-gun restrictions. He said the Court should force state and municipal governments to respect Second Amendment protections by “incorporating” the right to keep and bear arms using the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th Amendment. But this strategy differs from past arguments for incorporating the Bill of Rights against the states in an important way.

Using just the due process clause of the 14th Amendment would be enough to overturn Chicago’s anti-gun ordinances, argued Gura. But there are other reasons for it as well, he told the justices.

“In 1868, our nation made a promise to the McDonald family that they and their descendants would henceforth be American citizens, and with American citizenship came the guarantee enshrined in our Constitution that no State could make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of American citizenship,” Gura explained during his opening argument.

In the past, the Supreme Court has usually relied on the “due process” clause of the 14th Amendment to force states to recognize various rights. But for the Court to go along with Gura’s “privileges and immunities” argument, it could have to overturn the landmark “Slaughterhouse-House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases)” rulings that protected a butchering monopoly created by the state of Louisiana and held that the “privileges or immunities” clause affected only rights pertaining to U.S. citizenship.

"The Privileges or Immunities Clause could be used as a source for judicial activism unlike anything America has ever seen," warned the conservative American Civil Rights Union on its website (http://www.theacru.org/amicus-briefs/). The non-profit organization, which filed a brief in support of McDonald, argued that while the Court should incorporate the Second Amendment against the states using the privileges and immunities clause, it should not overturn the Slaughter-House decisions as proposed by Gura.

But while some conservatives oppose the idea of reversing that historic decision, an informative Washington Times article about the debate entitled "Gun rights lawyer gives hope to liberal causes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/02/gun-rights-lawyer-gives-hope-to-liberal-causes/?page=4)" noted that some “progressive” groups are joining with Gura in calling for the court to strike down the Slaughter-House ruling.

"[Progressives] cannot afford to absent themselves simply because the first beneficiary of the demise of Slaughterhouse may be a conservative cause, Second Amendment rights," explained a report from the Constitutional Accountability Center (http://www.theusconstitution.org/), a liberal organization which filed a brief in support of Gura’s argument. Critics argue that such a reversal could pave the way for the Court to extend all sorts of “rights” including abortion, healthcare, and gay marriage, and that it would disrupt the proper federal-state relationship.

Other analysts are crying foul on the move to strike down Chicago’s hand-gun ban for different reasons.

“The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states,” explained Jack Hunter in an article entitled "Gunning Down the Constitution" for The American Conservative. “The 2nd amendment does not apply to the Chicago gun ban because the federal government is not involved — nor should it be.” So while the ban may be “ridiculous,” Hunter claims people should oppose the Court striking it down “because this decision would trample the most important right of all — that of the states to limit the power of the federal government.”

But not so, according to constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has prevailed in three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Both the original Constitution and the Second Amendment made abundantly clear that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ applies to every level of government, without exception, throughout the United States,” he wrote in an analysis of the case for The New American entitled "The Second Amendment, The States, and the People (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/2603-the-second-amendment-the-states-and-the-people)": “Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure ‘the Militia of the several States.’”

Vieira argues that the even though a legislative solution would be preferable, “even under the Supreme Court’s misconceptions about the 14th Amendment, ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ should be held applicable to the States.”

During the hearing, a majority of Justices seemed like they were at least partially swayed by Gura’s arguments. Justice John Paul Stevens, however, was concerned that applying the Second Amendment in full against the states could end up giving people "the right to parade around the streets with guns." Justice Stephen Breyer thought the true issue boiled down to guns versus life. "Here, every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life," he said.

But regardless of what the public thinks, the Court is widely expected to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states while allowing “reasonable” restrictions to remain intact. What the definition of “reasonable” might be is still not known.

There is good news related to gun rights, too, however. While Chicago continues to defend its infringement upon the unalienable rights of its residents, states across the Union are defying federal government regulations by passing state laws nullifying some of those restrictions. Montana (http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/1102), Utah, and Tennessee have all passed versions of the “firearms freedom act (http://firearmsfreedomact.com/)” into law, voiding most federal rules against guns manufactured and kept in their respective states. Many other states are working on it as well. And public opinion (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-02-26-guns-cover_N.htm) is solidly in favor of less gun control, not more.

So while the anticipated Supreme Court decision may represent a partial victory to some, and an unconstitutional infringement on the powers of state governments to others, the future of gun rights in America generally looks brighter than it did just a few years ago. After all, more and more Americans are beginning to appreciate that the right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable gift from their Creator which “shall not be infringed” by government. And that is encouraging news.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/constitution/3079-partial-gun-rights-victory-could-have-other-implications

[FrankRep]

SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

[RCA]

Protecting individual rights = good.

[FrankRep]

Protecting individual rights = good.

Supreme Court overruling a State / City = Bad

[Kylie]

Supreme Court overruling a State / City = Bad



But don't all the judges take an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

If so, then they have upheld their end of the oath. It should strike down any unconstitutional law, even if those laws are enacted by states and cities.

[FrankRep]

But don't all the judges take an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?


Here's the Big Question: Does the Constitution protect "individual rights" or does it prevent the Federal Government from making laws that affect "individual rights." Big difference.




“The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states,” explained Jack Hunter in an article entitled "Gunning Down the Constitution" for The American Conservative. “The 2nd amendment does not apply to the Chicago gun ban because the federal government is not involved — nor should it be.” So while the ban may be “ridiculous,” Hunter claims people should oppose the Court striking it down “because this decision would trample the most important right of all — that of the states to limit the power of the federal government.”

But not so, according to constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has prevailed in three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Both the original Constitution and the Second Amendment made abundantly clear that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ applies to every level of government, without exception, throughout the United States,” he wrote in an analysis of the case for The New American entitled "The Second Amendment, The States, and the People": “Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure ‘the Militia of the several States.’”


Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

[roho76]

But don't all the judges take an oath to protect the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic?

If so, then they have upheld their end of the oath. It should strike down any unconstitutional law, even if those laws are enacted by states and cities.

Bingo. This is exactly what the Feds should be doing. It is against the Constitution for the City of Chicago to deny it's citizens the right of the 2nd Amendment. I can't believe we're not all in agreement here. Can somebody give me an argument to support the contrary and if so I will definitely look into it but I believe the Feds were in the right here. The states DO NOT have the right to trample on the basic rights of an American citizen. Am I wrong?

Side note: Now I'm sure the Feds had some reason for doing this. They are not going protect the 2nd Amendment like this without getting something. So my question is: What is that something?

[Southron]

This should have been handled at the state level.

This is a national solution to a state problem.

In the long run, restrictive places might have more firearms freedom but I bet the more free states will suffer when the Supreme Court is the final word on whether or not a gun law is constitutional.

[malkusm]

This should have been handled at the state level.

This is a national solution to a state problem.

In the long run, restrictive places might have more firearms freedom but I bet the more free states will suffer when the Supreme Court is the final word on whether or not a gun law is constitutional.

I put this option in the poll because, as I read the anti-Federalist papers more and more, this was one of their contentions against the Constitution. The Federalists won on this issue, and the Supreme Court kept its appellate jurisdiction over all cases. However, the anti-Federalists made the case that the Supreme Court will always rule on behalf of the party it represents (federal government) and will strike down State laws often, in order to grant the federal government legislative jurisdiction over those areas in the future. (See especially: Anti-Fed #80 and #81.)

Those guys were quite prescient, weren't they? :eek:

[Koz]

Although I completely agree with states rights, it seems to me that the Bill of Rights pertains to our God given, or natural rights. The way I understand it a right is given to you by your creator and cannot be taken away, period. Jefferson and others specifically wanted a Bill of Rights to spell out those rights that are natural, and these first 10 Amendments were ratified by the states, unanimously if memory serves correct. So, a state can no more take away your right to freedom of speech than they can your right to bear arms.

I fail to see how this is a states rights issue.

[Dr.3D]

Although I completely agree with states rights, it seems to me that the Bill of Rights pertains to our God given, or natural rights. The way I understand it a right is given to you by your creator and cannot be taken away, period. Jefferson and others specifically wanted a Bill of Rights to spell out those rights that are natural, and these first 10 Amendments were ratified by the states, unanimously if memory serves correct. So, a state can no more take away your right to freedom of speech than they can your right to bear arms.

I fail to see how this is a states rights issue.

That is exactly how I see it too.

[FrankRep]

This should have been handled at the state level

Jack Hunter would agree with you.

Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution
YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

[Matt Collins]

Richard Hamblen wrote on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1071805107):


Hardly a victory...McDonald completes the destruction of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution) begun by Heller. Read the opinion (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf), not the PR fluff. Is it a principal of justice to accept unConstitutional law merely because there is precedent for it?

Try to ignore the Militia component of the Second Amendment and you end up with "reasonable restrictions", defined by the personal whim of any federal judge.

Even Presser v. Illinois says "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

The operative phrase is "all citizens capable of bearing arms", the same language used in Miller in 1939. The Second Amendment is not about self defense or duck hunting. It is about the Militia, which is "everyone physically capable of bearing arms".The means to self defense is merely a happy benefit of the well regulated Militia.

How much longer are YOU going to stand by and passively watch the destruction of your God given rights?For those who do not remember Rich Hamblen is a Ron Paul supporter who spent 13 months in a federal prison camp because as a Battalion Commander of the TN State Guard he built machine guns for his unit and apparently the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply.

He is well qualified to speak on this subject as his case went all the way to the Supreme Court (at the same time as Heller) but was denied a hearing.

You can read about his case here:
http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates/ (http://www.esnips.com/web/HamblenvsUnitedStates/)


.

[malkusm]

Although I completely agree with states rights, it seems to me that the Bill of Rights pertains to our God given, or natural rights. The way I understand it a right is given to you by your creator and cannot be taken away, period. Jefferson and others specifically wanted a Bill of Rights to spell out those rights that are natural, and these first 10 Amendments were ratified by the states, unanimously if memory serves correct. So, a state can no more take away your right to freedom of speech than they can your right to bear arms.

I fail to see how this is a states rights issue.

The Constitution explicitly denotes that certain Amendments are only checks on the federal government, and have no bearing on State governments. For example, Amendment 1 starts with "Congress shall make no law," and Amendments 3 and 5 are also applied to states via Article I, Section 9.

I have come to the conclusion that I agree with you on Amendment 2, however. It seems to apply equally to all citizens, if the Supreme Court is going to have jurisdiction over the case (which the Constitution grants them).

[K466]

Only two votes for It is a bad thing - the 2nd Amendment restricts the power of the federal government, not the states?

Jack Hunter's argument makes sense, I'd like to know what Ron Paul, Thomas Woods, and others think.

[malkusm]

My conclusion (after a couple hours of reading and debate):

Even though the Constitution grants appellate jurisdiction over the Chicago case to the Supreme Court, the anti-Federalists didn't want the SC to have jurisdiction over state matters, and I agree with them. However, since they did have jurisdiction, I agree with the ruling, since the 2nd Amendment does not explicitly refer to the federal government anywhere in the document, and thus the ruling may not have conferred any new powers to the feds. I have issues with some of the language used in the decision, however (including the invocation of the 14th Amendment)

[ChaosControl]

The 2nd amendment specifically mentions the right to bear arms.
Thus it is not reserved for the states per the tenth amendment.
I don't know about the wording of the decision, but the ultimate decision is the right one in terms of constitutionality.

I am a localist though so sometimes the constitutional decision isn't the one I favor simply because it centralizes things. I oppose a gun ban, but I also oppose the federal government deciding pretty much anything other than maybe interstate disputes.

[Stop Making Cents]

The result is great, but the method of getting there is very dangerous.

The 14th Amendment is illegal since it was not ratified properly. Look it up. So using the 14th Amendment to justify anything is improper since it is not a legal Amendment.

[Dr.3D]

The result is great, but the method of getting there is very dangerous.

The 14th Amendment is illegal since it was not ratified properly. Look it up. So using the 14th Amendment to justify anything is improper since it is not a legal Amendment.

The GOA seems to think it was just the thing to do.

I received this email just a few minutes ago.


Gun Owners of America E-Mail Alert
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102, Springfield, VA 22151
Phone: 703-321-8585 / FAX: 703-321-8408
http://www.gunowners.org


Monday, June 28, 2010


Gun Owners of America rejoices in the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Otis McDonald and against the city of Chicago. In doing so, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the right to keep and bear arms (in the Second Amendment) to all 50 states.

"This is great news for Otis McDonald in Chicago and even greater news for citizens that are languishing under restrictive gun control laws across the country," said Erich Pratt, Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America.

GOA is still pouring through the ruling and will have a more detailed analysis later. But in brief, the Court ruled that:

* "The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States."

* "A survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrates clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty."

These are arguments that GOA has been making for years. In fact, Gun Owners of America submitted an amicus brief in this case and was pleased to see that Justice Clarence Thomas made some of the exact same arguments (found in our brief) in his concurring opinion.

The decision by the Court today will have tremendous ramifications for the restrictive gun control laws in California, New York City and elsewhere.

Gun owners, please stay tuned!

[Pericles]

Jack Hunter would agree with you.

Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution
YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

Jack Hunter needs to read Article V, as the Marshall court did not, and that is how the whole BoR only applies to the Feds got started in any case - you are quoting a Federalist judge.

The effect of the 14A is to overturn the Barron and Dred Scott SCOTUS decisions as Justice Black recognized.

[IPSecure]

Chicago mayor Daley Vows New Gun Law... (http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Daley-Vows-New-Gun-Ordinances-97328384.html)

[RCA]

Here's the Big Question: Does the Constitution protect "individual rights" or does it prevent the Federal Government from making laws that affect "individual rights." Big difference.




“The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a list of individual rights, but a list of things the federal government could not do to the states,” explained Jack Hunter in an article entitled "Gunning Down the Constitution" for The American Conservative. “The 2nd amendment does not apply to the Chicago gun ban because the federal government is not involved — nor should it be.” So while the ban may be “ridiculous,” Hunter claims people should oppose the Court striking it down “because this decision would trample the most important right of all — that of the states to limit the power of the federal government.”

But not so, according to constitutional attorney Edwin Vieira, Jr., who has prevailed in three cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Both the original Constitution and the Second Amendment made abundantly clear that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’ applies to every level of government, without exception, throughout the United States,” he wrote in an analysis of the case for The New American entitled "The Second Amendment, The States, and the People": “Indeed, the original Constitution actually required both the General Government and the States, not just to protect, but also affirmatively to promote, that exercise. This is because the original Constitution incorporated within its federal structure ‘the Militia of the several States.’”


Jack Hunter: Gunning Down the Constitution

YouTube - SA@TAC - Gunning Down the Constitution (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOz0jnOxPg4)

In this case, both he and Ron Paul are wrong. It takes a certain amount of lateral thinking to discover and support Ron Paul, it takes an even greater amount to admit he's wrong on the few occasions that he is.

[FrankRep]

In this case, both he and Ron Paul are wrong. It takes a certain amount of lateral thinking to discover and support Ron Paul, it takes an even greater amount to admit he's wrong on the few occasions that he is.

No one is "Wrong" in this case, just different philosophical viewpoints

[Promontorium]

My opinion isn't in the poll. It is a bad thing because it doesn't give the individual enough, and now it is set at a supreme court level, meaning the only way to reassert the 2nd Amendment is to go back to the supreme court again, which considering this court's opinion, won't be anytime soon.

Sadly, the supreme court has ruled DC's current laws are just. DC's law effectively make gun owning nearly impossible, and can limit what you can buy to muskets for god's sake.


If your idea of America allows states to strip people of their rights, then death to your America, because it is a lie, not a Republic, a federation of liars claiming to have rights, but supporting none.

My signature is what America is on paper, not this fantasy rightless federation you staters promote, nor this nightmare boundless amoral police state we have now.

[RCA]

No one is "Wrong" in this case, just different philosophical viewpoints

They are wrong legally AND philosophically. Legally because, well, that's not what the Constitution says. It's funny, we in the liberty movement love to use the phrase "in plain English" when determining the meaning of the Constitution, but we don't use this same phrase when one of our venerated leaders makes an error. This is sadly very sheepish of us and makes me question how far we are getting as a movement.

Philosophically because they are saying man-made laws (assuming it existed) are greater than natural laws. In other words, this is akin to saying the colonists had no right to revolt because it's "what the law said". Samuel Adams supported natural rights by revolting, the SCOTUS supported natural rights through lots of cumbersome proceedings and hearings. The end result being the same, more freedom for us.

EDIT: It's this kind of circular debating that make me lean towards anarcho-capitalism, though I'm not fully supportive yet.

[fgd]

This can only be good. The 2nd amendment to the Constitution says that "all states are prohibited from making a gun law more restrictive than X." Previously, X is "nothing". Now, X is "complete ban". This is good.

[Southron]

I put this option in the poll because, as I read the anti-Federalist papers more and more, this was one of their contentions against the Constitution. The Federalists won on this issue, and the Supreme Court kept its appellate jurisdiction over all cases. However, the anti-Federalists made the case that the Supreme Court will always rule on behalf of the party it represents (federal government) and will strike down State laws often, in order to grant the federal government legislative jurisdiction over those areas in the future. (See especially: Anti-Fed #80 and #81.)

Those guys were quite prescient, weren't they? :eek:

And liberty has suffered immeasurably for it.

The Supreme Court as it exists today is a terrible flaw in the Constitution.

As much as I admire the work of our founders, I think they made a big mistake with the judiciary.

[Pericles]

I'd suggest that the Anti-Federalists realized the real danger is that anything could be put into the Constitution via the amendment process, and thus would be the supreme law of the land. Prohibition, direct election of Senators, income tax, and such amendments were done via a legal process and gutted much of the natural limits on what should have been the power of the federal government.

The BoR was an attempted "per-emptive strike" to try to build in safeguards for the protection of the people, or give the means of protection to the population.

[sailingaway]

Thanks for the links. I will respond when I have read the opinion. I can imagine finding that result and still being respectful of state rights (using the due process clause, for example), but there are ways they could do it and cause states rights problems as well.

Snicker.....I live in California.... wonder if I'll be able to get a concealed carry license now...?

[Anti Federalist]

Is the McDonald Gun Decision Good for Liberty?

Posted by J.H. Huebert on June 28, 2010 09:22 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/60452.html

Having reviewed what the McDonald gun decision says, the next question is: Is it good for liberty?

The short-term answer is certainly yes. Chicago has one of the worst gun bans in the country, so if it’s loosened at all, then Chicagoans will enjoy more liberty. Presumably very restrictive bans in others cities will also fall, which is also good.

What about that disgusting language in the decision reassuring governments that the right to bear arms “does not imperil every law regulating firearms”? Some libertarian friends have suggested that this might embolden certain state or local governments to pass more gun laws, but this argument isn’t persuasive.

Places that don’t have more stringent gun control now haven’t been holding back because they heretofore thought that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an unqualified right to keep and bear arms. Until now, governments everywhere had every reason to think they could pretty much get away with anything because cities like Chicago had already done it. The reason some places, such as my home state of Ohio, have a lot of gun freedom (relatively) is because the people there want it, and that’s not going to change.

One might also argue that the decision is bad because it is centralist — it is the federal government telling the states what to do, which the Founders never intended, and which, arguably, the Fourteenth Amendment’s framers intended only to a limited extent. I’m sympathetic to this point of view, but that question was not at issue in this case. The reality is that the Supreme Court long ago assumed the power to strike down state and local laws that violate certain rights, and it’s not going to lose that power anytime soon no matter what. The only question now is whether it will use that power in a way that benefits liberty, and here it did so.

Of course, future Supreme Court decisions may make clear that the exceptions to the rule are so expansive as to render Heller and McDonald meaningless. And none of this is to say that we should be grateful to the Supreme Court for letting us do what we had a right to do in the first place, or that we should count on the Court to protect our rights in the future. Where you see the Supreme Court’s true character is in its decisions on the extent of the federal government’s power — which it has held to be virtually unlimited, with the exception of a few carved-out “rights” such as this one. If the Constitution is going to get us out of that problem, it won’t be through more Supreme Court cases, but through nullification.

[.Tom]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.

[John Taylor]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.

Some people on here are confused regarding the scope of the powers granted to various levels of government, and conflate the relatively greater constitutional power of the several states with the ability to "take rights away". That's a mistaken and unfortunate conflation.

[phill4paul]

Article VI: 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.

So here it is spelled out that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. Meaning all states within the Union. The natural rights listed are not only a limit on the federal powers, but also a guarantee to the people.

To argue otherwise would mean that the natural rights defined within the Constitution could be thrown out the window by any state within the Union.

Right to jury trial? Maybe not in SC.
The right of a woman to have an equal vote? Maybe not in NH.
The right for those of Hispanic decent to have a vote? Maybe not in AZ.
The right to be secure in your home or papers? Maybe not in CA

Ad Naseum.....

Given this then it is up to the federal government to intervene in cases where states violate the Law of the Land. The Constitution.

Now that doesn't mean that states, citizens and their representatives do not have the right to grant unto themselves powers greater than that ascribed within the Constitution. Just no less.

Therefore a state or city or municipality should not create a law which inhibits a right to bear arms. For the right to bear arms is implicit in the "law of the land."

Federal laws which limit the freedom ascribed within the Constitution should hold no merit without an amendment.

Therefore a state should be able to write into its own Constitution that its citizens have the right to bear automatic weapons. Or tanks.

Now in truth I am an anti-federalist. However,and unfortunately, the point for debating that is long past.

I personally could not give a shit about Chicago and whether they would allow guns to their citizens. I think the citizens should well be able to take up arms and demand that their "representatives" STFU. Without the federal authorities intervening.

However, I don't think that will be happening. At least not anytime soon. Until Americans are willing to take to their own defense we are left with what we are left with....

So in the words of Jefferson ""Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

[malkusm]

Article VI: 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.

So here it is spelled out that the Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. Meaning all states within the Union. The natural rights listed are not only a limit on the federal powers, but also a guarantee to the people.

To argue otherwise would mean that the natural rights defined within the Constitution could be thrown out the window by any state within the Union.

Right to jury trial? Maybe not in SC.
The right of a woman to have an equal vote? Maybe not in NH.
The right for those of Hispanic decent to have a vote? Maybe not in AZ.
The right to be secure in your home or papers? Maybe not in CA

Ad Naseum.....

Given this then it is up to the federal government to intervene in cases where states violate the Law of the Land. The Constitution.

Now that doesn't mean that states, citizens and their representatives do not have the right to grant unto themselves powers greater than that ascribed within the Constitution. Just no less.

Therefore a state or city or municipality should not create a law which inhibits a right to bear arms. For the right to bear arms is implicit in the "law of the land."

Federal laws which limit the freedom ascribed within the Constitution should hold no merit without an amendment.

Therefore a state should be able to write into its own Constitution that its citizens have the right to bear automatic weapons. Or tanks.

Now in truth I am an anti-federalist. However,and unfortunately, the point for debating that is long past.

I personally could not give a shit about Chicago and whether they would allow guns to their citizens. I think the citizens should well be able to take up arms and demand that their "representatives" STFU. Without the federal authorities intervening.

However, I don't think that will be happening. At least not anytime soon. Until Americans are willing to take to their own defense we are left with what we are left with....

So in the words of Jefferson ""Half a loaf is better than no bread. If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can."

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

[Dr.3D]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

So it is implying that some other body can make a law that limits the freedom of speech since Congress can not? I doubt that is the case.

If a certain state made a law prohibiting the freedom of speech, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The great myth perpetuated by the states right aspect of the liberty movement in general is the Constitution does not apply to individuals when in reality this is the greatest distinction between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

[GunnyFreedom]

Hear here Phill!

I am very disappointed that the Feds had to intervene to make this right, but that is the way the system is supposed to work, as a last resort the Fed will come in and prevent States from infringing against natural rights.

I would rather deal with a neighbor infringing on my property with his fence-line between the two of us alone, but if he adamantly refuses then I'd have to get the courts involved. I would be supremely disappointed in having to take it that far, but take it that far I would -- as a last resort and if there were no other remedy available. That's how I see the Chicago case.

The 2ndA does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress." it says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." PERIOD. That means (given the Art6 supremacy clause and the 10thA spelling out of delegated powers) that if you live in the United States and are a citizen of one of the several States, that you have the natural right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

This SHOULD be dealt with at the State level, no question. Bur if the States refuse to deal with it, then Federal Court is the only remedy available.

Just as with the theoretical example of the property line above, I am very disappointed and deeply saddened that it had to go that far, but that is the proper process and the residents of Chicago have every right to demand he natural rights they are guaranteed by being citizens within the USA.

Just like with the property line, now the issue will bear more official scrutiny than before the authorities were brought in to resolve the dispute, and that scrutiny is certainly unwelcome. But given the other choice (no guns or an infringed property) it is the only correct choice that remains on the dilemma.

I agree with the decision, but I am deeply disappointed it had to go that far and am very, very concerned for the official scrutiny this may bring in the future.

I picked "It is a good thing, but I have reservations about the language and the implications for federalism" which is not an exact fit, but the closest available.

[phill4paul]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

In what way malkusm?

Re-edit: Give me a sec......life is intervening and I'll get back to you on this.

[malkusm]

So it is implying that some other body can make a law that limits the freedom of speech since Congress can not? I doubt that is the case.

If a certain state made a law prohibiting the freedom of speech, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Theoretically, it would imply that the state Constitutions would deal with free speech and expression on their own terms. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise, of course.

I don't take that position; but if you're following the Constitution word for word, you can come to that conclusion.

[malkusm]

In what way malkusm?

I just meant that the Constitution explicitly states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it also explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law" concerning freedom of speech/expression/the press. Which means that the Supreme Law of the Land, as read literally, is that Congress is prevented from making such a law; the Constitution says nothing about a state which makes such a law, however.

[GunnyFreedom]

So it is implying that some other body can make a law that limits the freedom of speech since Congress can not? I doubt that is the case.

If a certain state made a law prohibiting the freedom of speech, wouldn't that be unconstitutional?

Unfortunately no. It SHOULD, no question about it. The amendment was poorly written to specify Congress when it should have been written without the specification like the 2ndA was.

If we are the sort to say "it means exactly what it says, damnit!" (and I am) then it would be hypocrisy to ignore the specification on the 1stA just because it disagrees with what we think the Founders meant.

I am assuming that all of the existing states at the time guaranteed free speech, and therefore they felt they did not need a State restriction here, only a Congressional one.

Clearly an oversight.

1stA reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I support a Constitutional Amendment to strike the phrase "Congress shall make no" and replace it with "No governing body shall make any"

[John Taylor]

Unfortunately no. It SHOULD, no question about it. The amendment was poorly written to specify Congress when it should have been written without the specification like the 2ndA was.

If we are the sort to say "it means exactly what it says, damnit!" (and I am) then it would be hypocrisy to ignore the specification on the 1stA just because it disagrees with what we think the Founders meant.

I am assuming that all of the existing states at the time guaranteed free speech, and therefore they felt they did not need a State restriction here, only a Congressional one.

Clearly an oversight.

1stA reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I support a Constitutional Amendment to strike the phrase "Congress shall make no" and replace it with "No governing body shall make any"

That's a very Rhenquist-ite take on the matter... so what was the 14th Amendment designed to do? Protect the individual ability of private people to earn a living? To incorporate the rights in the Bill of Rights? Nothing but incorporate the limited benefits of federal citizenship?

(Not that I disagree with you, I am not a fan of incorporation, it's a slippery slope straight to hell.)

[malkusm]

I am assuming that all of the existing states at the time guaranteed free speech, and therefore they felt they did not need a State restriction here, only a Congressional one.

Clearly an oversight.

This is the case if one reads the later anti-Federalist papers (81-84). They didn't argue the point that rights are God-given and should not be protected at all levels; rather, they scoffed at the notion that any State would ever allow such a law to be passed. Their argument for a Bill of Rights was largely that "every State has protections on these rights, and so should this powerful Federal government we are creating."

One area where I think they should have been a little more forward-looking, for sure.

[GunnyFreedom]

That's a very Rhenquist-ite take on the matter... so what was the 14th Amendment designed to do? Protect the individual ability of private people to earn a living? To incorporate the rights in the Bill of Rights? Nothing but incorporate the limited benefits of federal citizenship?

(Not that I disagree with you, I am not a fan of incorporation, it's a slippery slope straight to hell.)

Well right off I'll tell you I do not like the 14thA. The way I see it it was an attempt to pander to a certain populist sentiment and it has the clearly undesirable effect of homogenizing STATE law regarding the powers reserved to the States.

While an argument could be made that "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" means that any privilege or immunity a person has as a US Citizen (per the 14th also) such as free speech must apply also in all States, it is a weak argument and necessarily violates many of the fundamental principles of decentralization embodied by the US Constitution.

As a literalistic Constitutionalist, I am forced to acknowledge the 14thA as law, but I recognize it as deeply flawed, and abrogative of original intent and many of the fundamental principles that are supposed to make America America, and you end up on the horns of a dilemma.

The 14thA introduces a vast array of textural contradictions in the Constitution where you have to pick one or the other since different conclusions can be drawn depending on which contradiction you choose to follow.

Were I an associate justice, I would ONLY choose the 14thA whenever it was not already directly contradicted by other sections of the Constitution --- which is not very often.

This is why I HATE the 14thA -- by introducing co much contradiction it becomes impossible to be a literalist and forces you to choose which contradiction to abide by. If I had to make a ruling, I would universally choose the one not given by the 14th unless it were a rare case where the 14th did not introduce a contradiction.

[LibForestPaul]

So, a state can no more take away your right to freedom of speech than they can your right to bear arms.

I fail to see how this is a states rights issue.
Furthermore,
If the Supreme court did not take this case, what recourse does an individual have against a state that IS stripping a natural right?

If tomorrow, Texas made a law stating no Latinos may run for state office, or speak of immigration reform, and it was upheld by the highest court (Appellate?) what actions should be taken by those citizens who's natural rights are being stolen?

Did not vote, waiting for response.

[payme_rick]

Article VI also says:

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...

I'm not trying to make a point, yet, but very curious as to what the definition of "support" means here... Support as in "hey, this is a good thing, I support that", or support as in "I must do as it says"...

I believe I've asked this before, but do not remember getting an answer back...

[GunnyFreedom]

Furthermore,
If the Supreme court did not take this case, what recourse does an individual have against a state that IS stripping a natural right?

If tomorrow, Texas made a law stating no Latinos may run for state office, or speak of immigration reform, and it was upheld by the highest court (Appellate?) what actions should be taken by those citizens who's natural rights are being stolen?

Did not vote, waiting for response.

And THAT (a Texas law stating no Latinos may run for state office) would be one of those rare cases where the 14thA did not contradict other sections of the US Constitution, and therefore would be an appropriate application -- although to me it'd be like fingernails on a chalkboard to invoke it. I would rather see a new Amendment that specifies "No candidate may be barred from any public office based on race or gender" than to continue to validate the 14th, but if the 14th were the only recourse I'd invoke it (only if I must)

The Free Speech question is one of choosing which contradiction to abide. I would have no choice but to lean on the (also flawed) 1stA's "CONGRESS shall make no law..." but push heavily for a Constitutional Amendment to correct the obvious injustice.

[phill4paul]

I just meant that the Constitution explicitly states that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and it also explicitly states that "Congress shall make no law" concerning freedom of speech/expression/the press. Which means that the Supreme Law of the Land, as read literally, is that Congress is prevented from making such a law; the Constitution says nothing about a state which makes such a law, however.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Not states. the People. Not states. the Individual.

Otherwise I believe it would have been written....

"....shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people or their respective states."

[GunnyFreedom]

Article VI also says:

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...

I'm not trying to make a point, yet, but very curious as to what the definition of "support" means here... Support as in "hey, this is a good thing, I support that", or support as in "I must do as it says"...

I believe I've asked this before, but do not remember getting an answer back...


"To support this Constitution" would mean to support it as written. If it is written that a certain thing applied to the Fed and not to the States, then applying it to the States would be an abrogation, no?

[damiengwa]

I am sick of all these pussy whipped suppos'd bleevahs in RAHTs... Either they let you carry a gat every whereas y;ou wanna go or else the socialists win. Plain an simple. I don't understand why in THIS day and age my neighbors still look at me strange when I gots an AR-15 Strap to my back as I walk out in my undies to pick up the paper. Do we believe in the 2nd Amendment or NOT?!?!?

GET ON IT PEEPLE>>> THIS IS YOUR LEADER SPEAKING!!!!

[payme_rick]

"To support this Constitution" would mean to support it as written. If it is written that a certain thing applied to the Fed and not to the States, then applying it to the States would be an abrogation, no?

Agreed...

so as written, the 2nd amendment would apply to the states ... sucks about the 1st amendment though, which clearly says "congress"...

[GunnyFreedom]

Agreed...

so as written, the 2nd amendment would apply to the states ... sucks about the 1st amendment though, which clearly says "congress"...

The Constitution is certainly not perfect, but it can be amended. This is one amendment I would be pushing HARD if not for the fact that they are already ignoring Constitutional writ to incorporate the 1stA into the States anyway. It's still an amendment that we need, it's just not as urgent as it would otherwise be if it was actually being taken literally. It will not become urgent until the Constitution starts to be taken literally as it is supposed to be. Therefore we can include the Amendment of the 1stA within any amendment package which forces literal obedience, and be golden.

[payme_rick]

The Constitution is certainly not perfect, but it can be amended. This is one amendment I would be pushing HARD if not for the fact that they are already ignoring Constitutional writ to incorporate the 1stA into the States anyway. It's still an amendment that we need, it's just not as urgent as it would otherwise be if it was actually being taken literally. It will not become urgent until the Constitution starts to be taken literally as it is supposed to be. Therefore we can include the Amendment of the 1stA within any amendment package which forces literal obedience, and be golden.

Very interesting... thanks...

[damiengwa]

I never signed the constitution, did you? My rights are my own, the exist because i am human and have nothing to do with the constitutions...

[Pericles]

How do you reconcile this with the fact that the 1st Amendment states explicitly "Congress shall make no law...." ?

(I agree with what you are saying, though.)

This is where the Marshall court got it wrong in Barron v. Baltimore - assuming the language of the 1A was true for all of the BoR and because the rest of the BoR did not have the phrase No state shall. If the BoR did have that language as Marshall wanted, then the BoR would not apply to the Fed Gov.

Thomas got it right in his concurring opinion, where he even takes on the Barron decision as being overturned by the 14A.

[damiengwa]

constitution is a null and void agreement... all the parties who signed it, witnessed it signed and who were part of it are all dead and gone. what's the point even of debating such and old and insignificant document.?

[payme_rick]

I agree damiengwa, let's just toss out the constitution and let someone set up a monarchy or something...

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree damiengwa, let's just toss out the constitution and let someone set up a monarchy or something...

lol yep, he who has the biggest guns and the most money makes the rules. Kinda like in old England where the nobles of Scotland were required to be allowed by families to deflower the brides...

[FrankRep]

I agree damiengwa, let's just toss out the constitution and let someone set up a monarchy or something...


John Adams meets King George III

YouTube - John Adams meets King George III (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvn-bYVR2YI)

[phill4paul]

Don't feed him.

[Koz]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.


+1

[nobody's_hero]

I'm concerned about the precedent.

The saying goes:


The government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have.

It's good. I'm happy. But will I be happy 20 years from now when a liberal-leaning (or "conservative"-leaning?) Supreme Court says "Oh, well, we have the power simply to even decide on the matter. Therefore we can overturn this ruling and allow bans again."?

The seemingly benign power to decide may be too great a power in itself for the Federal government to possess on this matter.

I still can't figure out why this couldn't have been handled by a handful of gun owners in a fed-up crime-infested community. Or let the law-abiding citizens of Chicago vote with their feet and leave Chicago's fate to Darwinism.

[osan]

Supreme Court overruling a State / City = Bad

Please explain the basis of this opinion.

[malkusm]

The statists in this thread that believe they get their rights from a piece of paper scare the shit out of me.

"Okay, nobody can take this right away. The states can take this right away. Ummm, yeh this one the states can take away too. This one I think no one can take away."

How the hell can a STATE!!?? take away your natural right to self defense? Do you really believe that because some men wrote something on a piece of paper a couple hundred years ago that your rights are binding on that?

Seriously. To say that one gang can take away certain rights but another gang can't - I mean that's intellectually dishonest. It's not a right if a government can take it away.

Dude, go have a glass of whiskey. Relax. You're misinterpreting the entire basis of this thread.

You do realize that the thread title lists "good/bad" and "Constitutional or not" as different scales of value, right?

[GunnyFreedom]

All y'all claiming that Constitutionalists believe we get our rights from a piece of paper are either deluded, on crack, or intentionally promulgating a lie in order to bolster your position. Even the authors of the Constitution stated unequivocally that our rights come from the fact that we were human and alive -- the Constitution was not written to grant rights but to prevent the government from abridging those rights which are naturally ours as a condition of our humanity.

For those of you anarchists who are wondering why anarchists annoy the piss out of the rest of us, look first to WHY THE FUCK YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE in order to make your points. :mad:

ETA -- if someone lies about what I believe in order to make his point -- even if his ideas are roughly the same as mine, I will do everything in my power to oppose him. NOTHING pisses me off more than peple lying about what I believe in order to score points.

[malkusm]

All y'all claiming that Constitutionalists believe we get our rights from a piece of paper are either deluded, on crack, or intentionally promulgating a lie in order to bolster your position. Even the authors of the Constitution stated unequivocally that our rights come from the fact that we were human and alive -- the Constitution was not written to grant rights but to prevent the government from abridging those rights which are naturally ours as a condition of our humanity.

For those of you anarchists who are wondering why anarchists annoy the piss out of the rest of us, look first to WHY THE FUCK YOU HAVE TO LIE ABOUT WHAT WE BELIEVE in order to make your points. :mad:

ETA -- if someone lies about what I believe in order to make his point -- even if his ideas are roughly the same as mine, I will do everything in my power to oppose him. NOTHING pisses me off more than peple lying about what I believe in order to score points.

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lkzyz89efm_clap.gif

[Southron]

I'm concerned about the precedent.

The saying goes:



It's good. I'm happy. But will I be happy 20 years from now when a liberal-leaning (or "conservative"-leaning?) Supreme Court says "Oh, well, we have the power simply to even decide on the matter. Therefore we can overturn this ruling and allow bans again."?

The seemingly benign power to decide may be too great a power in itself for the Federal government to possess on this matter.

I still can't figure out why this couldn't have been handled by a handful of gun owners in a fed-up crime-infested community. Or let the law-abiding citizens of Chicago vote with their feet and leave Chicago's fate to Darwinism.

Vote Chicago out of the state and let it be a city-state. Let it rejoin the union with 1 Senator.

Of course it would require an amendment.

[nobody's_hero]

Vote Chicago out of the state and let it be a city-state. Let it rejoin the union with 1 Senator.

Of course it would require an amendment.

Lol. Well, that could go for a lot of cities/states.

I'm just a believer that stupidity should be confined to its jurisdiction.

[phill4paul]

http://www.colectiva.tv/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/lkzyz89efm_clap.gif

Seconded. The motion passes.

[Southron]

Lol. Well, that could go for a lot of cities/states.

I'm just a believer that stupidity should be confined to its jurisdiction.

Illinois is one of the few states that doesn't have concealed carry. And it's mainly because of Chicago.

[payme_rick]

Right on, Gunny..

I was born free, not made free or born into freedom... no piece of paper gave me freedom...

Trust me anarchists etc..., I wish we could live happily every after without any form of government... It'd be awesome... if it were only possible... it's not...

sure, we could live for a bit without one, but would there be some out there who lacked respect for true freedom and had the resources and organization to just start another government up? Yes... it WOULD happen...

We need to trim the system we have now DOWN, and make sure our constitution is obeyed by those we elect... but get rid of it completely? #1 I don't think it's possible and #2, the chances of a more tyranical government forming out of the anarchy is in my opinion inevitable...

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Right on, Gunny..

I wish we could live happily every after without any form of government... It'd be awesome... if it were only possible... it's not...

And neither is limited government demonstrated by the repeated failure of republics throughout history.

However knowing anarchy is real and society is the pipe dream, I will not strive for second best.

[payme_rick]

And neither is limited government demonstrated by the repeated failure of republics throughout history.



I almost agree with that, but I might just have a littttttle more hope that it can be turned around...

[GunnyFreedom]

I almost agree with that, but I might just have a littttttle more hope that it can be turned around...


i think it can be made to work, we just have to give it teeth. Like charging any lawmaker who abrogates the Constitution with High Treason and make them face a firing squad or a hangman's noose.

[Number19]

Unlike the 1st Amend. the 2nd doesn't say "Congress."
Therefore it applies to states as well.
I don't know if the 14th needs to be used in this case.
I also agree with the result.If the Bill of Rights applied to the states, why did the people of the states feel a need to place these same protections in their state's Bill of Rights?

At the time the Constitution was adopted, it was commonly known that this document addressed only the new federal government. At that time the power hierarchy was : citizen of the state, state government, federal government. (Note that federal citizenship was not recognized)

The 14th Amendment was a backdoor Revolution which overturned our previous political order. Now, it was Federal Government, State government, American citizen.

[michaelwise]

On the day Robert Byrd died. Hallelujah.

[.Tom]

Trust me anarchists etc..., I wish we could live happily every after without any form of government... It'd be awesome... if it were only possible... it's not...

Because expecting a monopoly on violence to protect liberty makes perfect sense. :rolleyes:

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

i think it can be made to work, we just have to give it teeth. Like charging any lawmaker who abrogates the Constitution with High Treason and make them face a firing squad or a hangman's noose.

Ya, let's give it teeth so we can trust monopoly courts to dole out justice to members of the government club. What a brilliant solution. I have a couple thousand lawsuits I need to go file immediately since justice is so plentiful in the justice system.

P.S. still rooting for ya!

[GunnyFreedom]

Ya, let's give it teeth so we can trust monopoly courts to dole out justice to members of the government club. What a brilliant solution. I have a couple thousand lawsuits I need to go file immediately since justice is so plentiful in the justice system.

P.S. still rooting for ya!

well, first of all we'd have to reform the courts such that the public has the power to bring charges and impeach justices to make that scenario work our correctly.

Secondly, I consider the Constitution --- if actually obeyed in totality --- to convey an dam near completely voluntaryist society.

[specsaregood]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.

"Today the Supreme Court of the United States made two key decisions. Jason discusses both of them, what they mean to you and we take calls from listeners."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS062810_1st%20Hr%20SCOTUS%20Talk.mp3?CPROG=PCA ST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

"Jason continues the conversation from the first hour and takes more calls from the listeners."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS062810_2nd%20Hr%20States%20Rights.mp3?CPROG=P CAST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

"Jason tackles some other news of the day including Joe Biden putting his foot in his mouth again."
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MINNEAPOLIS-MN/KTLK-FM/LEWIS062810_3rd%20Hr%20Monday%20News.mp3?CPROG=PCA ST&MARKET=MINNEAPOLIS-MN&NG_FORMAT=&SITE_ID=3359&STATION_ID=KTLK-FM&PCAST_AUTHOR=100.3_KTLK-FM&PCAST_CAT=talk&PCAST_TITLE=Jason_Lewis_on_100.3_KTLK-FM

Edit: 22minutes into hour 3 a caller pulls up a quote of Scalia saying the EXACT OPPOSITE of his ruling yesterday.

[specsaregood]

Book: "A matter of interpretation" (1997)
Scalia wrote:
"I view the 2nd amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Next passage:
"Of course, properly understood it is no limitation upon arms control by the states."

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

well, first of all we'd have to reform the courts such that the public has the power to bring charges and impeach justices to make that scenario work our correctly.

Secondly, I consider the Constitution --- if actually obeyed in totality --- to convey an dam near completely voluntaryist society.

Competition is the only way. If people can not vote every single day with their feet or wallets there is no check or balance for corruption.

[specsaregood]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.


And on the other side, here we have limbaugh saying the ruling was a good thing and the worst claim: "the constitution says what the government can't do." UGH!

[Southron]

Jason Lewis had a very reasonable discussion on the ruling yesterday. He came down against it. I was FOR it, but I think he convinced me that it is bad in the end.


You might want to keep that quiet here.

At best you will be called a statist ;)

[Number19]

Furthermore,
If the Supreme court did not take this case, what recourse does an individual have against a state that IS stripping a natural right?

If tomorrow, Texas made a law stating no Latinos may run for state office, or speak of immigration reform, and it was upheld by the highest court (Appellate?) what actions should be taken by those citizens who's natural rights are being stolen?

Did not vote, waiting for response.Move to another state.

[specsaregood]

You might want to keep that quiet here.

At best you will be called a statist ;)

Well the point that came up from the caller I mentioned in an earlier post is that by getting this in as precedent, it gives them more power in the future to limit the 2nd amendment at the federal level and override any state laws that guarantee it. I suppose that was probably argued in this thread as well. The fact that scalia in his ruling completely contradicted his earlier on the record analysis in regards to the state's rights and the 2nd amendment, causes me to think this is correct. This is part of a longer term plan to limit our rights and it has now been federalized and all the people supporting this ruling have just been snookered.

[LibForestPaul]

Move to another state.

Thought of that. The commerce clause needs to be amended then to truly remove Federal manipulation.

[LibForestPaul]

What then is the role of the supreme court? It should not get involved with any state tyranny?

[nobody's_hero]

What then is the role of the supreme court? It should not get involved with any state tyranny?

The Supreme Court is supposed to bitch-slap the U.S. Congress or the President when they do something unconstitutional.

[FrankRep]

The Supreme Court is supposed to bitch-slap the U.S. Congress or the President when they do something unconstitutional.

That is the State's Job, not the Supreme Court.

[Number19]

Over the past 30 years as an active Libertarian, an argument that some used against our message of non-initiation of force, is that we would force our form of government on those who disagreed.

Perhaps this influenced my thinking, but I support, as the most reasonable form of government, a Republic of 50 Independent States, bound into a Union by a Federal Constitution, and with a Federal Government of Limited Powers strictly enumerated in the Constitution. Each State would be governed by its own State Constitution and it would be the Responsibility of the Citizens of each State to insure those Rights they valued and wished to live under. Freedom of Movement would be protected by the Federal Constitution.

Now, my personal Choice would be to live in a State with a Libertarian Constitution, but I would not deny those who wished to live under a more restrictive Law.