V
Vibe
Guest
I would be extremely surprised to find that some of those very men did not do that very thing. As I sincerely doubt that they were all unarmed - even at the signing.
B
Big Al
Guest
As a matter of historical fact that many of the congress men went armed in the house and senate. The historical record is full of examples. Do we need to be reminded that these men were passionate about their views on freedom?
B
Big Al
Guest
I'm afraid your misunderstanding of the Federal Constitution is incorrect. The amendments to the Constitution is a prohibition on the Federal government in the Territories not to do infringe on these rights. "The Government did not give you these rights" These right were given to you by GOD! Each State or common wealth had to agree before they became a state to agree with the Federal Constitution, there Constitutions had to be in compliance before they were allowed to join the Union of States, as Territories.
These rights were and our common to all men that are free. If a government grants rights to men, then theses men are not free. It is truly simple to understand. Ask yourself this one question? Why did Men, in America say and think of themselves as KINGS? Because when they believed themselves to be KINGS, they knew that KINGS were granted to be KINGS, by GOD. They had no sovereign earthly Man that ruled over them.
X
xs hedspace
Guest
I see that the mayor of Chicago is already whining that this will "not help law enforcement". Hey, wake up, idiot!! None of the Bill of Rights were put there to make it easier for law enforcement. They are there to make it easier for the common citizen. How inconvenient is the Fifth Amendment to law enforcement! Tough crap, Mayor!
O
Old Timer
Guest
The best arguement
Today I was presented with the best argument against the mlitia idea I had ever herd.
My friend Tim said, back when the constitution was written, they could not have meant that the militias were the only ones that could possess firearms because people used guns to feed their families.
But it does not matter now anyway
Today I was presented with the best argument against the mlitia idea I had ever herd.
My friend Tim said, back when the constitution was written, they could not have meant that the militias were the only ones that could possess firearms because people used guns to feed their families.
But it does not matter now anyway
M
Mr. D
Guest
Where did you get the idea that Federal law only applies to federal territories and not states???? Break a federal law in the middle of the state you live in and you'll get to unlearn a few things in a federal prison! No state or territory may violate those rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Last edited by a moderator:
jackie schmidt
New member
Need a Civics Lesson
Mr. D, it seems some posters, (and probably a lot of citizens), need a simple Civics Lesson.
County law trumps city law
State Law trumps County Law
Federal Law trumps State Law.
The Constitution trumps everything. Period.
The reason people get confused is there are laws that the certain Govenments do not enact,. For instance, Murder, (unless there are provisions set forth in a particular statute), is the States responsibility. The only time The Federal Government gets involved in such cases is through the Presidential Pardon proccess, or through the Courts looking at Constitutional violations.
If ANY government agency, whether it be City, County, State, or Federal, passes a law the is declared contrary to The Constitution, then that law can not stand, and is emmediatly null and void.
Of course, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are, and are not, Constitutional. That is what they just did with the Washington DC Handgun Ban case.......jackie
Mr. D, it seems some posters, (and probably a lot of citizens), need a simple Civics Lesson.
County law trumps city law
State Law trumps County Law
Federal Law trumps State Law.
The Constitution trumps everything. Period.
The reason people get confused is there are laws that the certain Govenments do not enact,. For instance, Murder, (unless there are provisions set forth in a particular statute), is the States responsibility. The only time The Federal Government gets involved in such cases is through the Presidential Pardon proccess, or through the Courts looking at Constitutional violations.
If ANY government agency, whether it be City, County, State, or Federal, passes a law the is declared contrary to The Constitution, then that law can not stand, and is emmediatly null and void.
Of course, it is up to the Supreme Court to determine what laws are, and are not, Constitutional. That is what they just did with the Washington DC Handgun Ban case.......jackie
B
Big Al
Guest
The Articles of Confederation and Constitution for the United States of America grant the Congress of the United States power to establish certain courts and to create others by legislation.
The Constitution for the United States of America became effective when if was ratified by nine States on June 21, 1788. Congress enacted the first law on June 1, 1789 when eleven States had ratified the Constitution. The law passed by Congress and signed by the President of the United States was a law establishing an oath for the territorial government.
We know the oath was a territorial oath because it read: “I will support the Constitution of the United States.” The territorial President signed the legislation as required by Article I Section 7 Clause 2:
Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.
The territorial status of all the federal courts is confirmed when the Judiciary Act of 1789 is examined. Section 2 divides the United States into thirteen districts:
SEC . 2. And be it further enacted, That the United States shall be, and they hereby are divided into thirteen districts, to be limited and called as follows, to wit: one to consist of that part of the State of Massachusetts which lies easterly of the State of New Hampshire, and to be called Maine District;
The date of enactment of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is September 24, 1789. The two districts which are not yet States are Kentucky and Maine. Kentucky is admitted to the Union on June 1, 1791 and Maine is admitted on March 15, 1820.
The Judiciary Act of 1789 is legislation, therefore, all the courts created by legislation are territorial courts since Congress has no legislative power outside federal territory.
All the federal courts are territorial and limited to the federal government and federal territory. This includes the U.S. Supreme Court and certainly all the United States district courts.
Do you need more help? Understanding the nature of jurisdiction is not hard to understand, but it does require that you read the material. This material is put out by the U.S. Government.
A good example would be a memory of where the Feds took Timothy McVeigh to charge him with a Federal crime in Oklahoma. They had to take him to Federal Territory to make the charges. They took him to a military base. This is by law Federal territory. This Federal Territory has not change in scope since 1947 as can be seen in title 28 U.S.C. Within ever state Federal Territory lies, Military bases, National Parks, Land for Federal Court houses. This is often mistakenly thought to be the Geographical boundaries of the U.S., nothing could be further from the truth. I challenge anyone to show me in law that I'm wrong. Your assumption means nothing to me. Show me in law that I'm wrong. I long ago gave up on what I think I know, for what I can prove in law. It makes not one wit of difference to me of what you think you know, prove me wrong!
R
RStiefel
Guest
Big Al you might
want to rethink your response. Do you know what a Federal Enclave is? You break a law on a Federal Enclave, and you go to court in the District (federal) court in the county in which it took place. For instance: you break a law at Camp Pendleton and you go to court in San Diego because it is located in San Diego county. McVeigh was moved to a military installation for fear he would be killed elsewhere. He probably would have been.
want to rethink your response. Do you know what a Federal Enclave is? You break a law on a Federal Enclave, and you go to court in the District (federal) court in the county in which it took place. For instance: you break a law at Camp Pendleton and you go to court in San Diego because it is located in San Diego county. McVeigh was moved to a military installation for fear he would be killed elsewhere. He probably would have been.
B
Big Al
Guest
Have it your way, don't bother to read the statutes, just keep up with the WAG's you'll do well. "Let the blind lead the blind" It is so much more simple than reading law.
Thank goodness the justices know how to read the law.
Why do you think Scalia wrote what he did, as Mr. D passed along? Was he confused as others here seem to be?
I have long said that most American have no clue of what it means to be free.
They clamor for "RULERS" over them.
The state run schools and the media have done a wonderful job on insuring a dumbed down America.
Does history of America, scare you my fellow Americans?
Perhaps some more reading will help, read The Northwest Ordinance, does the date of 1787 hold any significance for any of you?
Last edited by a moderator:
M
Mr. D
Guest
You got it right! Good to hear it from a conservative. You know how we liberals lie!
M
Mr. D
Guest
There is nothing monumental about the decision at all, very predictable as you will see it came out as I predicted the decision way back without a crystal ball.
(1.) It reaffirms the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment refers to both militia and individual citizen rights since 1939. (No Change)
(2.) It says the local governments have the right to create regulation related to firearms but they must be "reasonable"! (No change!)
(3.) It rule that the D.C. laws were overly sweeping and unreasonable and therefore were against the 2nd Amendment. (Change)
It now gives support for overly sweeping and unreasonable gun regulation to be challenged based on this ruling. Political areas must now clearly meet a "reasonableness" standard rather that just vote in any law they like. A very good thing for liberals and conservatives alike!!
Even Scalia believes local political areas can make their own gun regulations as long as they meet that standard.
(1.) It reaffirms the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment refers to both militia and individual citizen rights since 1939. (No Change)
(2.) It says the local governments have the right to create regulation related to firearms but they must be "reasonable"! (No change!)
(3.) It rule that the D.C. laws were overly sweeping and unreasonable and therefore were against the 2nd Amendment. (Change)
It now gives support for overly sweeping and unreasonable gun regulation to be challenged based on this ruling. Political areas must now clearly meet a "reasonableness" standard rather that just vote in any law they like. A very good thing for liberals and conservatives alike!!
Even Scalia believes local political areas can make their own gun regulations as long as they meet that standard.
P
Peter
Guest
Here's why it was monumental (copy/pasted from another site)
The initial impact [of Heller] is tiny — two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state. But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.
* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a ‘hunting and sportsman’s’ right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the Constitution, not one created by the Constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (to be determined at a later date).
Even if the initial impact is tiny, this ruling is groundbreaking. This is the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of gun rights. The details will have to be fleshed out by future courts and future rulings, but the overall right is established.
Prior to today, there were many who argued that there was no individual right and that guns could be outright banned. After today, the right has been established, and now the long process of defining the limitations on that right begin.
None of our rights are considered absolute by the courts; they all withstand some level of restriction. Now the right to bear arms has been elevated to that position.”
...and all that is to say nothing about the further veracity it gives the ENTIRE bill of rights.
The initial impact [of Heller] is tiny — two DC laws will have to be modified. The ruling as it stands has no impact on any other city or state. But it was a TREMENDOUS ruling nonetheless. The Supreme Court has NEVER said anything substantial about what the Second Amendment means. They have finally spoken and settled many arguments.
* It protects an INDIVIDUAL right unconnected to service in a militia.
* It is a right to personal self-defense, that also happens to enable the militia. It is not a ‘hunting and sportsman’s’ right.
* It is a right that pre-existed the Constitution, not one created by the Constitution.
* That right is entitled to at least some degree of protection (to be determined at a later date).
Even if the initial impact is tiny, this ruling is groundbreaking. This is the ‘Roe v. Wade’ of gun rights. The details will have to be fleshed out by future courts and future rulings, but the overall right is established.
Prior to today, there were many who argued that there was no individual right and that guns could be outright banned. After today, the right has been established, and now the long process of defining the limitations on that right begin.
None of our rights are considered absolute by the courts; they all withstand some level of restriction. Now the right to bear arms has been elevated to that position.”
...and all that is to say nothing about the further veracity it gives the ENTIRE bill of rights.
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Paul Fielder
Guest
Well, we'll find out who's right and wrong.....
....in regards to this being monumental in short order. NRA has already started stirring the pot in San Francisco in regards to their gun ban!! This is going to be great. The anti's heads must be spinning right now
Loving it!!
pf
....in regards to this being monumental in short order. NRA has already started stirring the pot in San Francisco in regards to their gun ban!! This is going to be great. The anti's heads must be spinning right now
Loving it!!
pf
V
Vibe
Guest
Actually it was rather clear that they did NOT address this issue. Had they been asked to rule on this, one would think, previous precident would have come into play. I found this post itemizing these previous decisions and copy it below.
Using Miller as the source of the "Miller test" of 2nd Amendment items covered - along with the missing evidence in Miller pertaining to those weapons "of use to the militia" as well as the aforementioned cases. And most of the objectionable firearms infringements would fall.
Last edited by a moderator:
jackie schmidt
New member
Glenn
The only reason I mentioned those two is because they are absolute. Regardless of what crime a citizen of any State is convicted, the President can issue him a full and free pardon, based on nothing more than his desire to. There is no appeal to a Presidential Pardon, as it is a Constitutional Duty.
Of course, if a President did show utter irresponsibility in a Pardon, the Congress does have the power to bring articles of impeachment. That is the check on the Presidents power to pardon.
The other, "violations of the Constitution", are also absolute. Once the Supreme Court does issue a ruling that a certain statute is Unconstitutional, then there is no appeal. That Stands.
However, if the court does go too far, The people, through their Legislators and the proccess spelled out in The Constitution, can Amend the Constitution. If something is part of the Constitution, then it cannot be declared "Unconstitutional"
Of course, if the Legislature tires of Supreme Court Justices monkeying around with laws that they pass, then they can always bring articles of impeachment against them.
That is the check..........jackie
.
The only reason I mentioned those two is because they are absolute. Regardless of what crime a citizen of any State is convicted, the President can issue him a full and free pardon, based on nothing more than his desire to. There is no appeal to a Presidential Pardon, as it is a Constitutional Duty.
Of course, if a President did show utter irresponsibility in a Pardon, the Congress does have the power to bring articles of impeachment. That is the check on the Presidents power to pardon.
The other, "violations of the Constitution", are also absolute. Once the Supreme Court does issue a ruling that a certain statute is Unconstitutional, then there is no appeal. That Stands.
However, if the court does go too far, The people, through their Legislators and the proccess spelled out in The Constitution, can Amend the Constitution. If something is part of the Constitution, then it cannot be declared "Unconstitutional"
Of course, if the Legislature tires of Supreme Court Justices monkeying around with laws that they pass, then they can always bring articles of impeachment against them.
That is the check..........jackie
.
V
Vibe
Guest
The NRA is running behind the efforts of the SAF and Hellers lawyer in challenging Chicagos laws.....in regards to this being monumental in short order. NRA has already started stirring the pot in San Francisco in regards to their gun ban!! This is going to be great. The anti's heads must be spinning right now
Loving it!!
pf
R
RStiefel
Guest
Big Al
A simple definition search of FEDERAL ENCLAVE would help you to understand what Congress has the power to do. Every Piece of Federal land, National forest, Military installation, etc. etc. etc. is in FACT a Federal Enclave. This includes the District of Columbia.
A simple definition search of FEDERAL ENCLAVE would help you to understand what Congress has the power to do. Every Piece of Federal land, National forest, Military installation, etc. etc. etc. is in FACT a Federal Enclave. This includes the District of Columbia.
R
RayfromTX
Guest
The opinion that the 2nd confirms an individual right to bear arms was actually unanimous because even the dissenting opinion recognized the individual right. The dissenters were just fearful of the domino effect to striking down a gun control law in a crime ridden urban area.
I guess that is somewhat hopeful. I would have preferred a 7-2 decision. Hey, I'm not greedy.
I guess that is somewhat hopeful. I would have preferred a 7-2 decision. Hey, I'm not greedy.
jackie schmidt
New member
Crime
I believe that any crime commited with a deadly weapon, such as a Firearm, should automatically be bumped to "Capitol" status.
That way, when some thug decides to stick agun in someone's face and demand money, he just made himself eligable for the Death Penalty.
Another thing that also confuses me is the concept of charging someone with "attempted murder", if the victim survives. If you intentions were to point a firearm at some one and shoot them, it should be the same whether you were a bad shot, or not.
We need to reward law abiding citizens, and make penalties for criminals even more severe.........jackie
I believe that any crime commited with a deadly weapon, such as a Firearm, should automatically be bumped to "Capitol" status.
That way, when some thug decides to stick agun in someone's face and demand money, he just made himself eligable for the Death Penalty.
Another thing that also confuses me is the concept of charging someone with "attempted murder", if the victim survives. If you intentions were to point a firearm at some one and shoot them, it should be the same whether you were a bad shot, or not.
We need to reward law abiding citizens, and make penalties for criminals even more severe.........jackie