PDA

View Full Version : Rich Hamblem: McDonald NOT a victory for gun rights!




Matt Collins
06-28-2010, 12:17 PM
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/


.

Elwar
06-28-2010, 12:19 PM
We lost our gun rights after Civil War I.

Matt Collins
06-30-2010, 12:36 AM
We lost our gun rights after Civil War I.
Which time period are you referring to? :confused:

lynnf
06-30-2010, 04:15 AM
Which time period are you referring to? :confused:

I'd say they are referring to about 1865, when the first gun control was aimed at keeping arms out of the hands of free blacks, as Alito is said to have pointed out in his writing.


lynn

Matt Collins
06-30-2010, 09:28 AM
I'd say they are referring to about 1865, when the first gun control was aimed at keeping arms out of the hands of free blacks, as Alito is said to have pointed out in his writing.


lynn
Interesting. Where at? Can you link to a source?

Elwar
06-30-2010, 09:36 AM
Which time period are you referring to? :confused:

I was referring to how the true reason for the Second Amendment, to give the people the power to rise up against their government, became mute after the south lost the Civil War.

The power of the federal government was set, and the rest is history.

Arguing about whether or not you can have a pistol or an automatic pistol is pretty pointless when the federal government has uranium tipped missiles, F-18s, air craft carriers, nuclear submarines, etc...

The Second Amendment is now just for home protection and hunting.