No. Spare me the chapter & verse , please.
I just want to see a single example of ANY OTHER specific BOR issue that some other state doesn't recognise. Otherwise the chapter & verse is bullshite , far as I am concerned.
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Supreme Court agreeds to rule on the meaning of the Second Amendment
- Thread starter SemiAutoSam
- Start date
- Status
No. Spare me the chapter & verse , please.
I just want to see a single example of ANY OTHER specific BOR issue that some other state doesn't recognise. Otherwise the chapter & verse is bullshite , far as I am concerned.
The Supreme Court doesn't investigate the legality of constitutiional amendments. They evaluate legislation and regulation to determine constitutionality.
Be careful about wishing for a Constitutional Convention.
RE : Ratification Shenanigans
For example - Missisippi failed to properly ratify the 13th ammendment , therefore slavery is still legal in that state. ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.htm )
This is either true or all this ratification nonsense is meaningless because the rights guaranteed to the people are for all Americans regardless of a particular states vote in the ratification process. It only takes 3/4's of the states to make it law , not a unanamous decision.
Or am I wrong ?
For example - Missisippi failed to properly ratify the 13th ammendment , therefore slavery is still legal in that state. ( http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.htm )
This is either true or all this ratification nonsense is meaningless because the rights guaranteed to the people are for all Americans regardless of a particular states vote in the ratification process. It only takes 3/4's of the states to make it law , not a unanamous decision.
Or am I wrong ?
fubar:
The bill of rights was written to limit the powers of the federal government, not the powers of the state government. The supreme court has ruled that some of the amendments also apply to the states. But it hasn't so rule for all of the amendments, including the 2nd. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
The bill of rights was written to limit the powers of the federal government, not the powers of the state government. The supreme court has ruled that some of the amendments also apply to the states. But it hasn't so rule for all of the amendments, including the 2nd. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)
SemiAutoSam
Banned
I suppose that would depend on which 13th amendment your speaking of.
Take your pick of references there are quite a few.
This is one that I have read in the past.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/13essay.html
Others are linked to below.
http://www.google.com/search?source...GLG:2006-04,GGLG:en&q=Original+13th+amendment
You may wish to have a read at the links I posted in the first post before you comment on them. Mr Bensons material is a very interesting read.
Take your pick of references there are quite a few.
This is one that I have read in the past.
http://www.barefootsworld.net/13essay.html
Others are linked to below.
http://www.google.com/search?source...GLG:2006-04,GGLG:en&q=Original+13th+amendment
You may wish to have a read at the links I posted in the first post before you comment on them. Mr Bensons material is a very interesting read.
3rd time : ANOTHER example please ? I can't find one.
not to mention = ..... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like I said , I am a little slow , but are you telling me this reference to "State " doesn't mean " State " ?
not to mention = ..... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Like I said , I am a little slow , but are you telling me this reference to "State " doesn't mean " State " ?
I haven't seen a state try to wield "reasonable regulation" and I've
never seen case law uphold something like the legitimacy of the
NFA in the face of the 2nd amendment. US v Miller could
possibly have addressed this issue but the supremes chicken
shitted their way out of having to do it.
I could be missing something here- if so, please cite
it.... eg, some kind of SCOTUS decision made before US v Miller,
etc. I'm guessing you might be thinking of possibly a fed
circuit decision of some sort. I realize those vary very
widely- to the extent that in at least one circuit NFA law is
slightly different than the others.
"Reasonable Regulation" hasn't really been hashed out, but I
don't think the antis would want the supremes to be forced to
determine what that means. Mainly because if gun laws were,
for example, forced to only be as onerous as something like the "fire
in a crowded theater" standard, most state/fed gun regs would
become pretty much null and void, because their level of regulation
is far beyond that, in an equivalent sense. I doubt any of the other
rights in the BOR are nearly as destroyed or regulated as the 2nd is.
On the flip side, if the supremes were going to play
the "activist anti" tack, they could also essentially invent
whatever they want while ignoring massively obvious historical
precedent, but I think they'd try to weasel/chicken out long before
they did something like that.
-Mike
There's a near perfect storm here.
1. Multiple gun law proposals filed in Mass.
2. Supreme Court case which will be all over the media and talk radio for the next 4 months at least.
3. Liberal Massachusetts douchebag judge lets a murderous shithead free to murder a young couple in Washington State.
This is really the time to get our message out, and especially to let the Governor, the new Corrections Commissioner, judges, and political hacks know that THIS SH*T HAS GOT TO STOP.
1. Multiple gun law proposals filed in Mass.
2. Supreme Court case which will be all over the media and talk radio for the next 4 months at least.
3. Liberal Massachusetts douchebag judge lets a murderous shithead free to murder a young couple in Washington State.
This is really the time to get our message out, and especially to let the Governor, the new Corrections Commissioner, judges, and political hacks know that THIS SH*T HAS GOT TO STOP.
Front page of today's Herald
Mass-diver
NES Member
The people who have written on this thread may find reading this 1976 Mass SJC case educational as pertaining to what we have to deal with as case law in Massachusetts.
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/commonwealth_v_davis.txt
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/commonwealth_v_davis.txt
Justice Kaplan had to reach deep into his ass to pull out that bit of twisted logic. Thanks for the link and the insight into what we are all facing.
Figures... another 2nd amendment test case where the defendant is of questionable character (and in possession of a sawed-off shotgun no less
![[rolleyes]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/042.gif "Roll Eyes [rolleyes]")
).As opposed to that, one of the best moves by the Parker/Heller attorneys was using plaintiffs with squeaky clean records and from all walks of life, that and there were no underlying criminal charges or circumstances involved.
Even though the possibility exists that the court could rule in favor of DC (and rule the 2nd a collective right), I have yet to read even one positive take, opinion or round of applause by the antis for the SCOTUS deciding to hear this case.
Their troops and supporters are thoroughly demoralized by this event.
![[smile]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/001.gif "Smile [smile]")
I owe an apology to some & thanks for your patience to others , really not trying to sidetrack/hijack re: ratification. But i do think my misconceptions and understanding of the subject are on about the same level as most loyal conservative /Libertarian/pro-gun taxpayer with a job who'll never vote for a Democrat. ... & hopefull relevant to this whole topic.
Been reading & thinking on the links provided & some of my own searches. Now instead of being a pig headed ignoramous I hope someone can tell me I am wrong about what I have been realizing.
1st thing I hate to think about & grudginly accept : The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to any of us as individuals. My goddamn whole view of the subject has been earthquaked. And I feel like an idiot.
Constitution & Bill of Rights restrict Federal Government.
State Constitutions may be less or more restrictive than the US Constitution. But are free to ignore , modify or follow the us constitution
Ratification & the 3/4 votes to make it law is only the method to make an amendment into US Constitutuional law , but does not supercede state law as so many people seem to think it does - myself included until this morning.
Prior to the 14th amendment there actrually were such abominations as states having official churches , government restrictions on the free press , etc.
The 14th has these words in it :
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This allowed the Scotus to accept different cases one at a time and force the states to accept the same restrictions as the federal.gov. And they have done so with most of the Bill of Rights - but Not the 2nd amendment.
The " Massachusetts never ratified the 2nd " statements are off track/topic. It doesn't matter because it's apples and oranges. 3/4ths of the states DID ratify it so it bloody does well apply - but only to the Feds , not the citizens of any State.
So , accepting that Lockes Natural Rights , The preamble to the Declaration of Independance , and the Libertarian view that No one has the moral right to prevent me from having the tools i may need to live peacefully - are not laws ; i find myself completely pissed off. At myself , for not already knowing this , at the NRA & etc for basically promoting the idea that the bloody 2nd amendment applies to individual people who actually live in actual states.
All day I find myself saying WTF ?
The energy and focus of NRA , conservative editorial powers ,the gun industry itself , individual voters , and honest public servants should have always been on pushing the Supremes to settle this and force the States to apply the 2nd amendment to each individual state.
And all gloomy predictions aside DC vs. Heller could make this start happening , I guess.
Been reading & thinking on the links provided & some of my own searches. Now instead of being a pig headed ignoramous I hope someone can tell me I am wrong about what I have been realizing.
1st thing I hate to think about & grudginly accept : The 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to any of us as individuals. My goddamn whole view of the subject has been earthquaked. And I feel like an idiot.
Constitution & Bill of Rights restrict Federal Government.
State Constitutions may be less or more restrictive than the US Constitution. But are free to ignore , modify or follow the us constitution
Ratification & the 3/4 votes to make it law is only the method to make an amendment into US Constitutuional law , but does not supercede state law as so many people seem to think it does - myself included until this morning.
Prior to the 14th amendment there actrually were such abominations as states having official churches , government restrictions on the free press , etc.
The 14th has these words in it :
" No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This allowed the Scotus to accept different cases one at a time and force the states to accept the same restrictions as the federal.gov. And they have done so with most of the Bill of Rights - but Not the 2nd amendment.
The " Massachusetts never ratified the 2nd " statements are off track/topic. It doesn't matter because it's apples and oranges. 3/4ths of the states DID ratify it so it bloody does well apply - but only to the Feds , not the citizens of any State.
So , accepting that Lockes Natural Rights , The preamble to the Declaration of Independance , and the Libertarian view that No one has the moral right to prevent me from having the tools i may need to live peacefully - are not laws ; i find myself completely pissed off. At myself , for not already knowing this , at the NRA & etc for basically promoting the idea that the bloody 2nd amendment applies to individual people who actually live in actual states.
All day I find myself saying WTF ?
The energy and focus of NRA , conservative editorial powers ,the gun industry itself , individual voters , and honest public servants should have always been on pushing the Supremes to settle this and force the States to apply the 2nd amendment to each individual state.
And all gloomy predictions aside DC vs. Heller could make this start happening , I guess.
fubar, I thought you had it, until you said apples to oranges about the ratification of the 2d amendment.
Yes, the Bill of Rights, all of the amendments were ratified by a 3/4 majority, and it is federal law.
The odd twist comes in when the issue of states rights vs federal rights are discussed.
It's like the gay marriage fight that is going on now. The individual states feel they have the right to regulate marriage and feel the supreme court has no right to determine what a state must due in this situation.
The same confusion involves the 2d and other amendments.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are the rights of the states.
We, THE PEOPLE, vote in a Representative government to make our state and federal laws, and there is supposed to be separation between the powers of the Fed Govt and the State. Then you can get into "LOCAL" regulations like Morton Grove.
I think we will have a much clearer picture of this after SCOTUS hears this case in March. They HAVE been asked to rule on the broader meanings of the 2d amendment in relation to how it applies to "THE PEOPLE"
Yes, the Bill of Rights, all of the amendments were ratified by a 3/4 majority, and it is federal law.
The odd twist comes in when the issue of states rights vs federal rights are discussed.
It's like the gay marriage fight that is going on now. The individual states feel they have the right to regulate marriage and feel the supreme court has no right to determine what a state must due in this situation.
The same confusion involves the 2d and other amendments.
All powers not specifically given to the Federal Government are the rights of the states.
We, THE PEOPLE, vote in a Representative government to make our state and federal laws, and there is supposed to be separation between the powers of the Fed Govt and the State. Then you can get into "LOCAL" regulations like Morton Grove.
I think we will have a much clearer picture of this after SCOTUS hears this case in March. They HAVE been asked to rule on the broader meanings of the 2d amendment in relation to how it applies to "THE PEOPLE"
Last edited:
Nothing should be this confusing. Lawyers are a plague upon society. ...
Which is the "force" that compels my drivers license & marriage licence , to be recognised in all 50 states ? ( thinking of my Ma. Class A LTC ).
and beginning to get a small grasp on this bloody mess - It would have been the right thing to do with any prior case to just say " The Whole Damn Bill of Rights applies to everyone; 1st through 9th "
The more I learn about The Way Things Work , the more I want to withdraw from the whole game.
ANyway , thanks for your patience. to everyone for their patience.
SemiAutoSam
Banned
Since you brought up the 14th Amendment and United States citizens or did you mean united states Citizens.
you may find this interesting
14th Amendment
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
Citizenship
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php
Constitution
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php
And then there is also state Citizenship.
An old friend from the LA area has a website.
http://www.state-citizen.org/
And here are many more links that come up when his name is googeled.
http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLG:en&q=State+Citizenship+Richard++McDonald
you may find this interesting
14th Amendment
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
Citizenship
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php
Constitution
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php
And then there is also state Citizenship.
An old friend from the LA area has a website.
http://www.state-citizen.org/
And here are many more links that come up when his name is googeled.
http://www.google.com/search?source...GGLG:en&q=State+Citizenship+Richard++McDonald
Last edited:
Garys
NES Member
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are not a cafeteria menu. The question isn't whether MA accepts it, but whether the SCOTUS has interpreted it as extending to all states or being a restraint only on federal action.
I think we will see a fairly narrow decision that will apply only to the case and circumstances at hand. If the 2nd is affirmed as an individual right in this case, it will be the first step in what is likely to be a long road. DC may be required to allow all citizens to maintain a weapon in their home or place of business, but might be required to extend that that concealed carry.
From my long ago ConLaw class, I seem to remember that SCOTUS tries to decide cases as narrowly as possible. This is more true for "conservative" courts.
Gary
I for one am pretty excited to finally see a case come up where we may have a chance to finally straighten this out once and for all. Of course the supremes may rule narrowly but I am hoping for the best. How could anyone conceivably argue that anything in the bill of rights is a right of the state instead of an individual right?
Its going to be an interesting winter!
Its going to be an interesting winter!
so as far as I "get it" the 2A means, in real law, that the feds can't disarm us. Even though I feel pretty damn "Infringed". They left that atrocity up to the individual states. Most of them have a RKBA clause in their own individual Constitutions - but not Ma.
Since the end of the Civil War/adoption of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court has gone through the BOR on a case by case basis and forced the States as a group to accept the overriding authority of Fed law to apply to individual citizens.
They never got around to the 2nd. Those of us - a minority in the country , overpopulated with anti gun liberals , racists and sheeple - who live in states without a strong RKBA state constitution are left behind. This is why the NRA focuses most of it's work on state legislatures. Much easier to amend a state law than force the supreme court to roll the dice for everyone.
Heller will be either a revolution , a tiny first step , or an irrelevant case regarding those who don't live in a state ( District of Columbia )
Since the end of the Civil War/adoption of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court has gone through the BOR on a case by case basis and forced the States as a group to accept the overriding authority of Fed law to apply to individual citizens.
They never got around to the 2nd. Those of us - a minority in the country , overpopulated with anti gun liberals , racists and sheeple - who live in states without a strong RKBA state constitution are left behind. This is why the NRA focuses most of it's work on state legislatures. Much easier to amend a state law than force the supreme court to roll the dice for everyone.
Heller will be either a revolution , a tiny first step , or an irrelevant case regarding those who don't live in a state ( District of Columbia )
dixidawg
NES Member
From what I have seen, the NRA does virtually NOTHING regarding state law,,,,at least in this state....
yes they do ( NRA ) .... they keep asking me for money.
Seriously , i understand they assist & help finance GOAL. ... someone tell me if i am wrong.
My GOAL membership is recently renewed , but my NRA membership is up in a few weeks.
I wonder if i'd be better off just donating to GOAL ?
But let's not forget what Bill Clinton said when we are bitching about the NRA :
" Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the NRA kicking his arse in the South. "
Seriously , i understand they assist & help finance GOAL. ... someone tell me if i am wrong.
My GOAL membership is recently renewed , but my NRA membership is up in a few weeks.
I wonder if i'd be better off just donating to GOAL ?
But let's not forget what Bill Clinton said when we are bitching about the NRA :
" Al Gore lost in 2000 because of the NRA kicking his arse in the South. "
MaverickNH
NES Member
"It's a pretty common-sense idea that the more guns there are around, the more gun violence you'll have," D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer said. "One of the difficult things is, you can't measure what didn't happen," Singer said. "You can't measure how many guns didn't come into the District because we have this law."
That's right - assume that, although there is no data that the gun ban had a positive impact, that things MUST have been wose had the ban not been enacted.
The District of Columbia DA and Mayor also go on about how the ban would have worked but now all the guns siezed in crimes are found to come from out of state. Well duh! With no handgun licenses issues in DC for decades, how many DC gunshops are selling guns? Of course the guns used in crimes come from outside DC - there is no pipeline within DC other than stolen handguns. That alone shoots the stolen handgun Brady talking point away - if there are some 20k legally registered guns from pre-76 in DC, few are being stolen and entered into criminal activity.
That's right - assume that, although there is no data that the gun ban had a positive impact, that things MUST have been wose had the ban not been enacted.
The District of Columbia DA and Mayor also go on about how the ban would have worked but now all the guns siezed in crimes are found to come from out of state. Well duh! With no handgun licenses issues in DC for decades, how many DC gunshops are selling guns? Of course the guns used in crimes come from outside DC - there is no pipeline within DC other than stolen handguns. That alone shoots the stolen handgun Brady talking point away - if there are some 20k legally registered guns from pre-76 in DC, few are being stolen and entered into criminal activity.
- Status
