The Supreme Court is going to seal the deal

[Sematary]

As we all know, the SCOTUS is going to be looking at the DC case where they have had firearms banned in the city for 35 years or something like that. From what I was reading today, they are going to determine whether or not possession of a firearm is tied to membership in a militia. Here is my guess because history has shown that tyranny can only be had if the people are defenseless - the SCOTUS is going to shred the 2nd amendment. That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. It is the last piece of the puzzle to tyranny. They are expecting a decision by June. I pray that I am wrong.

[paulitics]

As we all know, the SCOTUS is going to be looking at the DC case where they have had firearms banned in the city for 35 years or something like that. From what I was reading today, they are going to determine whether or not possession of a firearm is tied to membership in a militia. Here is my guess because history has shown that tyranny can only be had if the people are defenseless - the SCOTUS is going to shred the 2nd amendment. That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. It is the last piece of the puzzle to tyranny. They are expecting a decision by June. I pray that I am wrong.

I think you are probably right judging by all the other signs. They will be paid off. The globalists are moving fast against us. One we lose our guns, they will start rounding people up.

[pcosmar]

Buy ammo.
Make back-up plans.
Have a second line of defense.
Pray.

[FreeTraveler]

If they didn't intend to shred the second amendment, they wouldn't bother to hear the case. As it stands, a court has ruled that the DC ban on handguns was unconsititional. Stating refusal to hear the case would have reinforced this ruling; deciding to hear the case sends a strong message that they will overturn the court's decision and reinstate the ban on handguns.

Get your guns and ammo prior to March, when the case is to be heard. If they shred the second amendment, they won't do it on the expected timetable. They'll do it quickly so that people don't have time to arm before the decision is handed down.

[ARealConservative]

I don't agree with most of you people on this issue.

I view the second amendment as a restriction on the federal government, not state government.

[FreeTraveler]

I don't agree with most of you people on this issue.

I view the second amendment as a restriction on the federal government, not state government.

Well, when the state cops come to get your guns, will that be OK with you, or is your RIGHT only in relation to the FedGov?

My rights are non-negotiable with ANY government.

[angrydragon]

Well whatever isn't in the Constitution, is left up to the states and people. The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

[Mortikhi]

I've said before and I'll say it again:

Nothing in this country will change until 100,000 go to Washington D.C. while exercising their freedom to assemble and right to bear arms.

Maybe if the supreme court decides that we aren't allowed to have guns, people will be upset enough to march on the capitol with their guns in hand.

[Hook]

I don't agree with most of you people on this issue.

I view the second amendment as a restriction on the federal government, not state government.

The 17th amemdment places the same restrictions on the States that are placed on the Feds in the Constitution.

[ARealConservative]

Well whatever isn't in the Constitution, is left up to the states and people. The right to bear arms is in the Constitution.

unless you are willing to allow the totally insane to possess a firearm - you already agree with infringments.

This is a losing issue for us. The majority of American's agree with some form of gun control. Keeping the issue in the states is the best we can hope for. Then we can vote with our feet.

[ARealConservative]

The 17th amemdment places the same restrictions on the States that are placed on the Feds in the Constitution.

Ron Paul argues against incorporation of the bill of rights though.

[pcosmar]

U.S. Constitution, Amendment II
(also known as 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.

And state.


Michigan Constitution Article I, Section 6

Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

[Anti Federalist]

This is confirmed the SCROTUS will hear the case.

And. frankly, it surprised me, I thought for sure they were going to punt this one.

It's a lose - lose for them.

They rule in favor "individual rights" and the establishment has lost a powerful weapon against us.

They rule against "individual rights" and they touch off a shitstorm that will engulf us all.

The SCROTUS is still scratching it's collective asses over the outcry at the Kelo v New London decision. They were really upset and clueless about why so many were outraged at that.

So, even though my first thought on the matter was wrong, that they would dodge taking this case, I'll make another in a simple statement:

Burn the phrase "reasonable restriction" into your brain.

[integrity]

I feel pretty strong about this. I WILL have to be killed...

The NRA is stabbing us in the back. Join GOA.

[pcosmar]

unless you are willing to allow the totally insane to possess a firearm - you already agree with infringments.

This is a losing issue for us. The majority of American's agree with some form of gun control. Keeping the issue in the states is the best we can hope for. Then we can vote with our feet.

On the question of insanity. Where do you draw the line?
In some countries anyone who disagreed was deemed insane.
This is a tricky question.
I would rather the whole population be armed, and be able to effectively deal with the random nut.

[Anti Federalist]

The New Hampshire Constitution:

2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

The Maine Constitution:

Section 16. To keep and bear arms. Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned.

The Vermont Constitution:

Article 16. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

[Anti Federalist]

A Real Conservative wrote:


This is a losing issue for us.

No defense of liberty is a losing issue.

Especially one as important as this one.

[FreeTraveler]

On the question of insanity. Where do you draw the line?
In some countries anyone who disagreed was deemed insane.
This is a tricky question.
I would rather the whole population be armed, and be able to effectively deal with the random nut.

Amen! Do you really want some court to be able to proclaim you insane and take away your right to self-preservation?

Notice that the massacres always go down in a victim disarmament zone like a campus or a mall. When's the last time sombody attacked a gun show or a police convention?

"An Armed Society is a polite society." - Robert A. Heinlein

[ARealConservative]

A Real Conservative wrote:



No defense of liberty is a losing issue.

Especially one as important as this one.

this one is.

You are actually taking the federalist approach on this issue. A one size fits all solution to the problem.

Consent of the governed is a winning approach - which means a given state can vote in favor of gun control if the constitutents of that state agree.

[FreeTraveler]

this one is.

You are actually taking the federalist approach on this issue. A one size fits all solution to the problem.

Consent of the governed is a winning approach - which means a given state can vote in favor of gun control if the constitutents of that state agree.

You're confusing a Republic with a Democracy. Certain rights are inalienable, which means non-negotiable. The right of self-preservation is the prime example.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

Nobody can vote away anyone's right to self-preservation. If you don't want that right, feel free to put an "Unarmed Household" sign in your front yard and see what happens.

[Bossobass]

"Should the Second Amendment to the American Constitution be permitted to go the way of the English right to be armed, as a dangerous relic of another era? In fact, it cannot be legislated out of existence the same way. The American Congress is not sovereign, our Constitution is. The Constitution has a clear procedure for altering its contents-amendment. If the government and people in their wisdom come to the conclusion that no need for the right of the people to be armed exists, or that such a right does more harm than good, then amendment is the course that should be followed. While it is unconstitutional to legislate a right out of existence, this particular right is threatened with misinterpretation to the point of meaninglessness. Granted, this is a far easier method of elimination than amendment, being much quicker and not requiring the same rigid consensus or forthright discussion of its constitutional relevancy. But it is also the way of danger. For to ignore all evidence of the meaning and intent of one of those rights included in the Bill of Rights is to create the most dangerous sort of precedent, one whose consequences could flow far beyond this one issue and endanger the fabric of liberty.

Should the Second Amendment be altered or eliminated through amendment? Before that is considered it is imperative to grant the founders of the American Constitution, whose wisdom in so much else has borne the test of time, the courtesy of considering why they included this right. Their original intent is of not only academic but immediate interest. What does the right actually mean, and why did they consider it essential? Are standing armies still a threat to a 20th century world? Do the people need a right and a means to revolution? Will other rights suffice? Are individuals still in need of personal weapons for protection? We are not forced into lockstep with our forefathers, but we owe to them our considered attention before we disregard a right they felt it imperative to bestow upon us."

[Above form the book, To Keep and Bear Arms by Joyce Lee Malcolm, 1994]

I personally especially despise the notion that the Supreme Court can assume the position of law makers. As the above quoted passage states, if we the people decide that an amendment is necessary, that's exactly what it should take to alter the 2nd amendment...NOT a Supreme Court ruling.

Bosso

[ARealConservative]

You're confusing a Republic with a Democracy. Certain rights are inalienable, which means non-negotiable. The right of self-preservation is the prime example.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" -- Benjamin Franklin

Nobody can vote away anyone's right to self-preservation. If you don't want that right, feel free to put an "Unarmed Household" sign in your front yard and see what happens.

What you describe is a form of intervention.

If rights were inalianable, then you would also argue for a lack of gun control in Mexico and Canada, but I doubt you want to intervene in their policy so why intervene in another states policy?

The Bill of rights was a complete after thought to the constitution and have caused more damage then anything. The bill of rights enforce the notion that the constitution isn't enumerated in many peoples minds.

But if you think this is a winning platform, ask some people if they think violent felons should have a right to guns. Ask if clinically insane people without the ability to recognize right from wrong should posess guns. Politically, this is a losing attitude.

[Sematary]

What you describe is a form of intervention.

If rights were inalianable, then you would also argue for a lack of gun control in Mexico and Canada, but I doubt you want to intervene in their policy so why intervene in another states policy?

The Bill of rights was a complete after thought to the constitution and have caused more damage then anything. The bill of rights enforce the notion that the constitution isn't enumerated in many peoples minds.

But if you think this is a winning platform, ask some people if they think violent felons should have a right to guns. Ask if clinically insane people without the ability to recognize right from wrong should posess guns. Politically, this is a losing attitude.

Your rights cannot be taken from you but you can (stupidly) forfeit them, as felons do. Of course, the concept of "felon" like so many other things, has been taken far to far. Should insane people have weapons? Who determines insanity? If you are considered "insane" then you should be put away to protect society and yourself so this is a moot question. Should felons lose their right to vote? Not after they have served their time. Should they lose their right to own a weapon? NO. If they are determined to have been rehabilitated and released into the general population then they should be able to legally carry a weapon. If they cannot be so trusted then they should not be released.

[angelatc]

As we all know, the SCOTUS is going to be looking at the DC case where they have had firearms banned in the city for 35 years or something like that. From what I was reading today, they are going to determine whether or not possession of a firearm is tied to membership in a militia. Here is my guess because history has shown that tyranny can only be had if the people are defenseless - the SCOTUS is going to shred the 2nd amendment. That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. It is the last piece of the puzzle to tyranny. They are expecting a decision by June. I pray that I am wrong.

I am sadly certain you are right. Their decisions on imminent domain made me cry - this will devastate me. The country that I love is being dismantled piece by piece by so-called special interest groups, and I am powerless to stop them.

[angelatc]

I don't agree with most of you people on this issue.

I view the second amendment as a restriction on the federal government, not state government.

Every single amendment in the BIll of RIghts pertains to individual liberty. WHy would the 2nd be the only exception to that>

[ItsTime]

We are powerless no more! RonPaul2008.com spread it. Its about time we had a choice :D



I am sadly certain you are right. Their decisions on imminent domain made me cry - this will devastate me. The country that I love is being dismantled piece by piece by so-called special interest groups, and I am powerless to stop them.

[robertwerden]

John Titor predicted (warned) about something that would lead to a civil war starting with the 2004 elections and being extremely obvious in 2008. Waco type events every week.

The hording and hiding of firearms, the creation of militias to meet the supreme court requirements to own a firearm, the civil unrest from the loss of the 2nd amendment could lead this country into a civil war.

[FreeTraveler]

Politically, this is a losing attitude.

This isn't about politics. This is about unalienable rights. You're welcome to come get my guns, anytime you're ready.

[ARealConservative]

This isn't about politics. This is about unalienable rights. You're welcome to come get my guns, anytime you're ready.

This is that losing attitude I speak of.

I'm not going to take your guns - I am not going to be the one voting to have government do it either. Your rant just turns off the vast vast majority of Americans.


99.9% of Americans agree with some form of gun infringment. That is all I'm saying.

[FreeTraveler]

99.9% of Americans agree with some form of gun infringment. That is all I'm saying.

Source, please?

[apropos]

This is a losing issue for us. The majority of American's agree with some form of gun control.

History has shown the majority isn't always correct. I'm reminded of a church shooting awhile back down in Texas. A gunman came in during the morning service and killed 7 or 8 people. A cop was in the crowd, but he wasn't armed. After the event, the cop said he would never go anywhere without a gun again. He said that if he had been carrying that morning, he could have saved every single person there.

"Control" never stops at common sense when the government is involved.

[ARealConservative]

Every single amendment in the BIll of RIghts pertains to individual liberty. WHy would the 2nd be the only exception to that>

not true.

For instance, the 1st amendment specified that it only pertained to congress.

Not until after the civil war did we incorporate this and many other amendments.

Which makes the constitution a contradictory document now.

[ARealConservative]

History has shown the majority isn't always correct. I'm reminded of a church shooting awhile back down in Texas. A gunman came in during the morning service and killed 7 or 8 people. A cop was in the crowd, but he wasn't armed. After the event, the cop said he would never go anywhere without a gun again. He said that if he had been carrying that morning, he could have saved every single person there.

"Control" never stops at common sense when the government is involved.

I'm not arguing what is correct, only what is politically feasible.

[Dustancostine]

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statedat.htm

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date

Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School *



Legend: New text is set in bold; relatively insubstantial changes set in small type.

To see the constitutional provisions sorted by state, and with complete citations, click here.



1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1776 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.

1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.

1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.

1790 Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1792 Kentucky: That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1796 Tennessee: That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1799 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

1802 Ohio: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power.

1816 Indiana: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power.

1817 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State.

1818 Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1819 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned.

1819 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.

1820 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned.

1832 Mississippi: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State.

1834 Tennessee: That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1835 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State.

1836 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power.

1836 Arkansas: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1838 Florida: That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.

1842 Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1845 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State.

1850 Kentucky: That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms.

1850 Michigan: Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1851 Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1851 Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State [military subordination clause removed].

1857 Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

1859 Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.

1865 Missouri: That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State cannot be questioned.

1865 Georgia: 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.

1865 Florida: Clause omitted.

1868 Texas: Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe.

1868 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1868 Florida: The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State.

1868 South Carolina: The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1868 Mississippi: All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence.

1868 Georgia: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne.

1868 Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense.

1870 Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

1875 Missouri: That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons.

1875 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice.

1876 Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons.

1876 Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

1877 Georgia: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne.

1879 Louisiana: 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 abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed.

1885 Florida: The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne.

1889 Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.

1889 Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied.

1889 South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied.

1889 Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1889 Idaho: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1890 Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.

1891 Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: First: The right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties. . . . Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons.

1895 South Carolina: 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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it.

1896 Utah: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law.

1901 Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.

1907 Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

1912 Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.

1912 New Mexico: The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1945 Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.

1959 Hawaii: 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.

1959 Alaska: 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.

1963 Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state.

1968 Florida: The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.

1970 Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

1971 North Carolina: 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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein [word omitted] shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice.

1971 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.

1971 Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

1974 Louisiana: [Militia clause deleted.] The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person.

1978 Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms [qualifiers omitted], which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

1982 Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.

1982 New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.

1984 North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed.

1984 Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms.

1986 West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use.

1986 New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms.

1987 Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.

1987 Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms [for the common defence omitted] and this right shall never be questioned.

1988 Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

1990 Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. (b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph. (c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony. (d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun.

1994 Alaska: 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 individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State.

1998 Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose

[FreeTraveler]

not true.

For instance, the 1st amendment specified that it only pertained to congress.

Not until after the civil war did we incorporate this and many other amendments.

Which makes the constitution a contradictory document now.

You must be living in a different country than the one I live in. The mention of congress in the 1st Amendment states it shall "make no law" and the Bill of Rights was ratified December 15, 1791.

From http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the "Bill of Rights."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

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.

[literatim]

Source, please?

58.56% of all statistic are fabricated.

[Anti Federalist]

ARC wrote:


this one is.

You are actually taking the federalist approach on this issue. A one size fits all solution to the problem.

Consent of the governed is a winning approach - which means a given state can vote in favor of gun control if the constitutents of that state agree.

Who has the records of every firearm transaction? Who do you have to call and check in with every time you buy a firearm? Who has complete and total control over every firearm dealer?

The fedgov.

Along with any number of restrictions on type, size and design of a weapon.

This is like the arguments over the validity of the 16th Amendment.

I know and agree that it was probably not ratified properly and so was the 14th.

But its there now. And the 14th makes it clear a state cannot violate the rights in the BoR.

I'm assuming you'd find it OK for states to ban the right to trial by jury, or teh Catholic church let's say.

Face it, you don't like the gun issue or possibly guns themselves, which is fine. Don't start parsing freedoms however. You're at the wrong place for that.

[ARealConservative]

ARC wrote:



Who has the records of every firearm transaction? Who do you have to call and check in with every time you buy a firearm? Who has complete and total control over every firearm dealer?

The fedgov.

Along with any number of restrictions on type, size and design of a weapon.

This is like the arguments over the validity of the 16th Amendment.

I know and agree that it was probably not ratified properly and so was the 14th.

But its there now. And the 14th makes it clear a state cannot violate the rights in the BoR.

I'm assuming you'd find it OK for states to ban the right to trial by jury, or teh Catholic church let's say.

Face it, you don't like the gun issue or possibly guns themselves, which is fine. Don't start parsing freedoms however. You're at the wrong place for that.


I'm a gun owner. I have quite a few of them.

This is one issue that I find our camp completely hypocritical about however as we are looking for federal protection.

We seem to want to acknowledge consent of the governed when it suits us and also inalianable rights when it suits us.

A little consistency would be nice.

Ron Paul argues against the incorporation of the 1st amendment. He says we are waging a war against religion.

[ARealConservative]

But its there now. And the 14th makes it clear a state cannot violate the rights in the BoR.


sorry to beat a dead horse, but this is the problem

The 14th isn't clear at all - which is why SCOTUS has went back and forth on what to incorporate and what not to incorporate.

What it comes down to is a legal definition of privileges and immunities - there isn't one. So unlected judges basically decided what they were and contiue to tweak the definition when it suits them.

[Gorgy]

The 17th amemdment places the same restrictions on the States that are placed on the Feds in the Constitution.

I'm guessing you mean the 14th?

[american.swan]

As we all know, the SCOTUS is going to be looking at the DC case where they have had firearms banned in the city for 35 years or something like that. From what I was reading today, they are going to determine whether or not possession of a firearm is tied to membership in a militia. Here is my guess because history has shown that tyranny can only be had if the people are defenseless - the SCOTUS is going to shred the 2nd amendment. That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. It is the last piece of the puzzle to tyranny. They are expecting a decision by June. I pray that I am wrong.

I am not sure what they will rule, but ultimately the ruling will be used to continue and in some cases enhance gun control laws.

[Hook]

I'm guessing you mean the 14th?

I guess so :D

[noxagol]

The 2nd amendment applies to all forms of government just like the 4th amendment does. If the Constitution only applied to the fed government, then before the 14th amednment, no local or state police would need warrants to search your home, nor would you have the right to trials, nor would they be prohibited from torturing you. Since it does no label who is not allowed to infringe, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, it only makes sense that the 2nd amendment applies to all and any government in these United States.

If the 2nd amendment does not protect you against the states or local governments, then neither does the 4th, 5th, 6th, or 7th.

[American]

The DC snipers didnt get the memo, they did pretty well for two guys acting alone. Just think if they had selected targets to choose from.

[Anti Federalist]

ACR wrote:


This is one issue that I find our camp completely hypocritical about however as we are looking for federal protection.

We seem to want to acknowledge consent of the governed when it suits us and also inalianable rights when it suits us.

It was the Anti Feds who insisted on the Bill of Rights, and I am quite sure that the intent was to make sure that these rights could not be abridged by the fedgov or the states.

That was the purpose of the 9th and 10th.

If you are suggesting that the states have the right to override the BoR then I suggest that would be a losing position.

[Chester Copperpot]

I've said before and I'll say it again:

Nothing in this country will change until 100,000 go to Washington D.C. while exercising their freedom to assemble and right to bear arms.

Maybe if the supreme court decides that we aren't allowed to have guns, people will be upset enough to march on the capitol with their guns in hand.

Thats not a bad idea. really..

Its catching on.. Im tellin ya. (Sounds of 100,000 guns loading up)

[xd9fan]

I've said before and I'll say it again:

Nothing in this country will change until 100,000 go to Washington D.C. while exercising their freedom to assemble and right to bear arms.

Maybe if the supreme court decides that we aren't allowed to have guns, people will be upset enough to march on the capitol with their guns in hand.

couldn't agree more
I have said this before as well

[267]

Supreme Court does not have authority to amend the Constitution. Their jurisdiction on such matters can be removed. Another important question is the whole cockeyed concept of judicial review...making precedents out of erroneous decisions. The Constitution says nothing at all about that and it should be stopped.

[SeanEdwards]

On the question of insanity. Where do you draw the line?

Let a jury decide each individual case.

[noxagol]

People are innocent until proven guilty. I agree with a background check to discover pass behavior, but not with testing or requiring training to get a weapon. People are responsible for their actions, if they chose to get a weapon without the slightest clue as how to operate it and accidently kill someone, they will have a long time to call themselves stupid in prison serving for man slaughter or murder.

[Noleader]

As we all know, the SCOTUS is going to be looking at the DC case where they have had firearms banned in the city for 35 years or something like that. From what I was reading today, they are going to determine whether or not possession of a firearm is tied to membership in a militia. Here is my guess because history has shown that tyranny can only be had if the people are defenseless - the SCOTUS is going to shred the 2nd amendment. That is my prediction. I hope I am wrong, but I don't think so. It is the last piece of the puzzle to tyranny. They are expecting a decision by June. I pray that I am wrong.

I do not think they are going to address the militia aspect of the 2nd amendment in this case. I think they are going to stick to the aspect that DC is not a state and as such are they entitled to the same rights and protections as a state.

[inibo]

On the question of insanity. Where do you draw the line?
In some countries anyone who disagreed was deemed insane.
This is a tricky question.
I would rather the whole population be armed, and be able to effectively deal with the random nut.


I'm wondering what the opinions here are about felons owning guns. At the present time if you've been convicted of a felony or any kind--even non-violent things like drug possession/sales, fraud, tax evasion, etc--it is illegal to possess firearms (with an interesting exception for black powder weapons).

Should a person who has satisfied the conditions of his/her punishment be prohibited from owning firearms?

[Noleader]

Should a person who has satisfied the conditions of his/her punishment be prohibited from owning firearms?

If that was not part of the sentence then you should be able to own a firearm after serving your time. I think the judge should decide that aspect when imposing your sentence.

[pcosmar]

Should a person who has satisfied the conditions of his/her punishment be prohibited from owning firearms?
NO
Should he be able to attend church?
Should he be able to speak?
Earn a living?
Own a home?

Protect that home?

[noxagol]

I think that if they commit a crime using a gun, then they should not be allowed to own any legally because they have proven that they are not responsible with their rights, and responsibility and rights are two sides of the same coin. Other than that, no, felons should be allowed the own and carry arms.

[foofighter20x]

If they didn't intend to shred the second amendment, they wouldn't bother to hear the case. As it stands, a court has ruled that the DC ban on handguns was unconsititional. Stating refusal to hear the case would have reinforced this ruling; deciding to hear the case sends a strong message that they will overturn the court's decision and reinstate the ban on handguns.

Get your guns and ammo prior to March, when the case is to be heard. If they shred the second amendment, they won't do it on the expected timetable. They'll do it quickly so that people don't have time to arm before the decision is handed down.

Uh... It only takes the minority vote of 4 justices on the court to hear a case.

[foofighter20x]

The 17th amemdment places the same restrictions on the States that are placed on the Feds in the Constitution.


Ron Paul argues against incorporation of the bill of rights though.


I'm guessing you mean the 14th?

It's the 14th.

[FreeTraveler]

Uh... It only takes the minority vote of 4 justices on the court to hear a case.

Yep, but what's your point?

[foofighter20x]

Ron Paul argues against the incorporation of the 1st amendment. He says we are waging a war against religion.

That would be because the 1st Amendment limits only Congress, while the 2nd Amendment is a general clause. Since the 2nd doesn't specifically limit solely the federal government nor solely the states, generally it is read to restrict both.

[foofighter20x]

Yep, but what's your point?

When you said that they'd only hear the case if they were going to overturn the lower ruling seems to imply that you are assuming that the fifth vote is already there.

It could be that the USSC wants to in fact affirm the lower court's ruling of unconstitutionality at a higher level, one that extends the ruling to the entire country instead of just the DC Circuit.

[FreeTraveler]

When you said that they'd only hear the case if they were going to overturn the lower ruling seems to imply that you are assuming that the fifth vote is already there.

It could be that the USSC wants to in fact affirm the lower court's ruling of unconstitutionality at a higher level, one that extends the ruling to the entire country instead of just the DC Circuit.

Well, the supremes have a long history of coming down on the side of less freedom, not more, so I'll be surprised if they reverse this trend.

[xd9fan]

I'm wondering what the opinions here are about felons owning guns.
Slow down!!!


This country is having issues with Law abiding CITIZENS owning guns. (AND ITS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS):mad::mad::mad::mad:

[xd9fan]

Then taking the case IMHO is a bad sign. The lower court ruling was beautiful. The only reason I can see what they took it, is because the lower courts are split on the issue of is it or is it not an Individual Right.

The D.C. circuit and the 5th circuit (and current federal law.....The U.S. Department of Justice .....http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/2004opinions.htm) 8-24-04

All the other circuits are for a "collective Right" whatever the hell that is:rolleyes:
(more 60's gen BS)

[asgardshill]

I'm going to be a nutty optimist and hope against hope that the Supremes will find that the RKBA is an individual right, subject to the lightest possible restrictions (the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" meme). While I don't want the criminally insane packing legal heat, the "authorities" should have a long tough legal slog to prove that I don't deserve the RKBA, even if I live in an urban cesspool which I don't.

[noxagol]

I'm going to be a nutty optimist and hope against hope that the Supremes will find that the RKBA is an individual right, subject to the lightest possible restrictions (the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" meme). While I don't want the criminally insane packing legal heat, the "authorities" should have a long tough legal slog to prove that I don't deserve the RKBA, even if I live in an urban cesspool which I don't.

I have the same hope.