PDA

View Full Version : CA constitutional assult on AWB


paradox
03-03-2006, 7:43 AM
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Has there been an attack on the assult weapons ban using Article I, Section I of the California Constitution? I may not need a non-neutered AR with a 30round mag for deer hunting, but I may need it for defending life and liberty. If a group of Gang Bangers/CHICOM/ninjas/zombies/aliens attack I am going to need more than a 10 round, break open rifle.

Chaingun
03-03-2006, 9:47 AM
Has there been an attack on the assult weapons ban using Article I, Section I of the California Constitution? I may not need a non-neutered AR with a 30round mag for deer hunting, but I may need it for defending life and liberty. If a group of Gang Bangers/CHICOM/ninjas/zombies/aliens attack I am going to need more than a 10 round, break open rifle.

I think a .38 and a .22 is all you need to fend off those pesty gang-bangers:D

klmmicro
03-03-2006, 11:14 AM
Zombies (and most Aliens)? That is when the M14 should be out of the safe! Poodle Shooters have their limitations.

sv_sniper
03-03-2006, 11:20 AM
I will drag my .50 BMG out of safe if such situation ever happens.:D
Also get my IDF-M14 ready (with a lot of 20-rd USGI mags, of course).

The fixed-mag 10 round AR style weapons would be junk at this moment. It's even worse than a SKS. Believe me, load 10 rounds to SKS with stripper clips is pretty fast.

blacklisted
03-03-2006, 12:39 PM
Won't work. We don't have the right in California to possess and to defend our life with firearms. Notice that there is no 2nd amendment in the California constitution. This argument was tried before and failed.

paradox
03-03-2006, 1:20 PM
Won't work. We don't have the right in California to possess and to defend our life with firearms. Notice that there is no 2nd amendment in the California constitution. This argument was tried before and failed.


Do you know the name or docket number of the cases that failed?

blacklisted
03-03-2006, 2:03 PM
Do you know the name or docket number of the cases that failed?

Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)

Although plaintiffs assert the AWCA fails to satisfy even the rational basis test, they contend it should be reviewed under the "intermediate or even strict scrutiny standards of legal review" because "portions of the [AWCA] touch upon [an] express fundamental constitutional right." This fundamental right plaintiffs locate in article 1, section 1 of the California Constitution, which provides: "All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy." If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution's declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.

paradox
03-03-2006, 2:16 PM
Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)



http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.


Thank you.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-03-2006, 2:52 PM
Sure:

Kasler v. Lockyer, - Cal.4th - (2000)



http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/kasler_v_lockyer.txt

or

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/kasler2.htm

As you can see, this EXACT argument was tried, and it failed.


This is TOTAL BS!!!:mad:

They act as though the state of CA is an island not part of the United States of America. As if the US constitution does NOT apply to Californians. TOTAL CRAP! The US Constitution applies to ALL, even Californians. Our right to bear arms is protected even if NOT specifically written into the CA Constitution. Its just that the US Supreme Court has not granted cert. on a case that would clear the issue. I mean, is there NOT a need for clarification? Is that NOT what the SPOTUS is for? We have different states with hugely varying opinions on the 2nd amendment and we need the SCOTUS to clarify and state that the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right just like the rest in the Bill of Rights.

The problem I have with CA Judges is this.....cleary they wrote in the decision that the right to bear arms is not specifically written into the CA Constitution. They used that as part of their justification for denying the plaintiffs argument. That does NOT mean they would agree with the Plaintiff if it were....they would just come up with some other BS reason NOT to acknowledge the individuals right to bear arms...or they would say severe restrictions were perfectly legal.

What we need is for the SCOTUS to clarify the issue. That is the only way I see our rights to be restored.



**Blacklisted** I hope you know my anger is not at you or anything you have said...only at the judges and politicians that keep screwing us on this issue. :)

blacklisted
03-03-2006, 2:55 PM
What we need is for the SCOTUS to clarify the issue. That is the only way I see our rights to be restored.

**Blacklisted** I hope you know my anger is not at you or anything you have said...only at the judges and politicians that keep screwing us on this issue. :)

I understand. I'm in a constant state of anger because of them as well.

SCOTUS could clarify the issue, or they could totally ruin it for everyone. I think with the new justices we have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable ruling though.

Have you signed the CA RKBA petition? The link is in my profile. This group is trying to get a Right to Keep and Bear Arms added to the California state constitution.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-03-2006, 3:01 PM
I understand. I'm in a constant state of anger because of them as well.

SCOTUS could clarify the issue, or they could totally ruin it for everyone. I think with the new justices we have a pretty good chance of getting a favorable ruling though.

Have you signed the CA RKBA petition? The link is in my profile. This group is trying to get a Right to Keep and Bear Arms added to the California state constitution.

Yes, I absolutely have. I even have some printed on the proper paper and keep some with me to have my family sign.

While I agree that the CA RKBA petition is important to get on the ballot and passed, I dont think it will settle the issue for us. We still need SCOTUS to act. I could see the SCOTUS coming down and saying there needs to be access and restrictions to guns not unlike some of the more restriciton free states have now. Not like CA, NY and other states. Also, CCW's should also be available as long as you are not a felon or insane.

I can dream cant I?

vrylak
03-03-2006, 4:49 PM
I guess we are second class US Citizens in the state of Kalifornia then and in some states that have mimic Kalifornia. I think if the state insists that the
2nd Amendment is not honored in it's constitution then the state's constitution is illegal and unenforceable since it doesn't completely guarantee the rights of all US Citizens as outlined in the US Constitution, the supreme law of the land.

It's as if you went to a car dealership but the new car you bought only got 3 wheels because the 4th wheel is banned in the state. OTOH most of the Union are enjoying their cars because they get to drive around with all 4 wheels. I mean WT%#%#$F!

ohsmily
03-03-2006, 5:10 PM
You guys are living in a fantasy if you think that the states don't have the ability within their police power to regulate firearms ownership and registration under current case law.

The Supreme Court has even upheld complete bans of handguns in various municipalities around the country.

In Quilici v. Morton Grove the Supreme Court upheld a handgun ban in a city in Illinois. They have upheld many other bans and restrictions around the country b/c of the states' right to regulate commerce and firearms registration within its border.

If you can make a NEW or UNIQUE argument, then that is worth discussing. If you are simply going to say "The 2nd Amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms", you are just wasting your time and any court would likely grant summary judgment for the state and the appellate court would affirm and no state or the US SC would hear the case.

The best way to change things in this state is to be POLITICALLY ACTIVE, SHARE THE SHOOTING SPORTS, VOTE and ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE AS WELL. (By no means are all Dems against guns. You can be a Dem (though I am not) and still support gun rights. So, even though this state is Dem dominated, that doesn't mean you can't educate or introduce your friends to shooting and convert them to gun friendly voters (when various pieces of legislation come up)).

taloft
03-03-2006, 5:16 PM
This is TOTAL BS!!!:mad:

Now you know why so many of us are mad about this issue. Apparently you are permitted to defend your life but, you will have to be a master of the boomerang to do it. :rolleyes: :D

If you find that boomerangs are illegal keep it to yourself. It will only depress me further.

ajwells
03-03-2006, 5:40 PM
Now you know why so many of us are mad about this issue. Apparently you are permitted to defend your life but, you will have to be a master of the boomerang to do it. :rolleyes: :D

If you find that boomerangs are illegal keep it to yourself. It will only depress me further.


hahahahahaa... that's great.

paradox
03-03-2006, 6:11 PM
Not the first time law and common sense have diverged, I doubt it will be the last.

What is scary is the implications of this line of reasoning.....

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press.


Yeah there is freedom to print your ideas, but that doesn't mean that it is illegal for us Government Stooges to make you sign an obedience oath in order to buy a modern xerox printing unit. After all you are still able to carve woodblocks ancient china style. Oh nevermind, the new unsafe-press law makes that illegal. Well, plenty of printing presses have been manufactured in the past, you can freely buy amongst those in circulation ... so long as you make the transaction through a State and Federally licensed print dealer and supply your drivers license, thumb print, retnal scan, chip implant and background check to make sure you have never been arrested of any Soapbox offenses.....



Makes one want to buy more ammunition.

taloft
03-03-2006, 6:18 PM
Not the first time law and common sense have diverged, I doubt it will be the last.

... so long as you make the transaction through a State and Federally licensed print dealer and supply your drivers license, thumb print, retnal scan, chip implant and background check to make sure you have never been arrested of any Soapbox offenses.....



Makes one want to buy more ammunition.


Don't forget the DNA sample and the anal probe. :D

FreedomIsNotFree
03-04-2006, 12:11 AM
You guys are living in a fantasy if you think that the states don't have the ability within their police power to regulate firearms ownership and registration under current case law.

The Supreme Court has even upheld complete bans of handguns in various municipalities around the country.

In Quilici v. Morton Grove the Supreme Court upheld a handgun ban in a city in Illinois. They have upheld many other bans and restrictions around the country b/c of the states' right to regulate commerce and firearms registration within its border.

If you can make a NEW or UNIQUE argument, then that is worth discussing. If you are simply going to say "The 2nd Amendment says I have the right to keep and bear arms", you are just wasting your time and any court would likely grant summary judgment for the state and the appellate court would affirm and no state or the US SC would hear the case.

The best way to change things in this state is to be POLITICALLY ACTIVE, SHARE THE SHOOTING SPORTS, VOTE and ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE AS WELL. (By no means are all Dems against guns. You can be a Dem (though I am not) and still support gun rights. So, even though this state is Dem dominated, that doesn't mean you can't educate or introduce your friends to shooting and convert them to gun friendly voters (when various pieces of legislation come up)).

While I agree with you on the current state of gun laws across the country my point is more fundamental. The Bill of Rights apply to all Americans regardless of which state they reside. Of course there are reasonable restrictions that can be legally put on firearms...just like there are for the 1st Amendment....you cant yell fire in a crowded theater. There are reasonable limitations and unreasonable limitations. You dont see individual States having 50 different interpretations of the 1st Amendment. You dont see individual States have 50 different interpretations of the 4th Amendment. I can go right on down the line and you will see that the 2nd Amendment is treated differently than any of the others in the Bill of Rights. This is wrong.

The 10th Amendment, The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

When States argue sovereignty they base that on the 10th Amendment. The Bill of Rights are Individual rights that can not be abridged by ANY state. Its not until you get up to the 10th where it says everything else that has not been talked about Amendments 1-9 are left to the states to decide. This gives the individual states broad powers.....but not when you are dealing with Amendments 1-9.....those are for the individual regardless of which State they reside in.

I know...I know....this is how I see it and no court has ruled this way...YET. This is why we need the SCOTUS to clarify this issue. If the SCOTUS came down and agreed that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual that would SERIOUSLY limit the amount of regulation individual States could impose on the gun owner.

We need the SCOTUS to agree that the 2nd Amendment applies to the individual....just like the rest of Amendments 1-9.

glen avon
03-04-2006, 11:18 AM
You dont see individual States having 50 different interpretations of the 1st Amendment. You dont see individual States have 50 different interpretations of the 4th Amendment. I can go right on down the line and you will see that the 2nd Amendment is treated differently than any of the others in the Bill of Rights.

not true. there are many many different laws, varying from state to state, city to city, regarding the 1st amendment. state free speech laws can differ from federal laws, too.

and the circuits have differing 4th amendment jurisprudence.

there is a split between the 5th and 9th circuits re the 2nd amendment.

there is no inherent inconsistency here. it may seem that way because there is so little 2nd amendment jurisprudence, but that is not the case.

CowtownBallin
03-04-2006, 12:44 PM
I was pretty sure that the Bill of Rights was to prevent Federal tyranny, not state tyranny. So, all you guys who are crying that the 2nd amendment says the ability to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, I say it means not infrindged by the Federal government. Remember, a lot of the Founding Fathers were States Rightists, and I think they left it as is so that each state can come up with its own Constitution to define what they want and don't want. The California Constitution happens not to have a clause for the protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

glen avon
03-04-2006, 1:08 PM
I was pretty sure that the Bill of Rights was to prevent Federal tyranny, not state tyranny. So, all you guys who are crying that the 2nd amendment says the ability to keep and bear arms will not be infringed, I say it means not infrindged by the Federal government. Remember, a lot of the Founding Fathers were States Rightists, and I think they left it as is so that each state can come up with its own Constitution to define what they want and don't want. The California Constitution happens not to have a clause for the protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

you are correct up until the 14th amendment, where the bill of rights was applied to the states. now, some thinl only certain parts apply to the states, other argue that all of them do. the current supreme court jurisprudence is that only some of the first 10 amendments are applied to the states, and the 2nd is not one of them.

icormba
03-04-2006, 6:04 PM
Originally Posted by CA Constitution
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS


SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


Actually, by looking at all these reasons... I think my collecting (acquiring) firearms these past years have brought me more happiness than anything else.

xenophobe
03-04-2006, 7:48 PM
First and foremost, you are a Citizen of the State of California, and you must abide to the laws set by this state. Furthermore, you are also a Citizen of the United States of America and have rights, unless regulated on a state level. People need to realize, no matter how blurred the lines have become in the past hundred years that you are only an American Citizen because of the fact that you are a Citizen of a State that is part of the greater republic. If California were to secede from the Union, we would no longer be Americans, we would be the Independent Republic of Californians.

The State has the authority to modify rights, deviating from the US Constitution where it chooses, it also has the power to become independent, though there would be a nightmare of new problems, infrastructure that would need to be built... anyways, that's getting of the subject... The Bill of Rights does not grant you, or guarantee you any specific rights individually. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent corruption to the Constitution by nature of amendments to the Constiution. The Constiution was designed to prevent corruption of the States.... The Rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are considered pre-existing. We are assumed to have all these rights, and this document merely declares this and says that the government must recognize and respect them.

Anyways, until the 14th Amendment came out, the States could freely ignore the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment states "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."

So, in theory a State may not take away, limit or restrict ANY of your rights, without due process of law. This obviously sucks, but has been built into our government.

So there it is... sorry, having a hard time focusing. :p Perhaps I'll re-edit later. lol

FreedomIsNotFree
03-04-2006, 8:49 PM
You guys are living in a fantasy if you think that the states don't have the ability within their police power to regulate firearms ownership and registration under current case law.

The Supreme Court has even upheld complete bans of handguns in various municipalities around the country.

In Quilici v. Morton Grove the Supreme Court upheld a handgun ban in a city in Illinois. They have upheld many other bans and restrictions around the country b/c of the states' right to regulate commerce and firearms registration within its border.

In Quilici v. Morton the court found that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. Their reasoning for allowing the handgun ban had to do with the handgun specifically...not the right to bear arms in general. They basically found that handguns were not "military weapons". I dont see how that would apply in this case being that we are talking about rifles that are undoubtedly "military weapons" likely to be used by a member of the militia.

ohsmily
03-04-2006, 9:04 PM
In Quilici v. Morton the court found that the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the States. Their reasoning for allowing the handgun ban had to do with the handgun specifically...not the right to bear arms in general. They basically found that handguns were not "military weapons". I dont see how that would apply in this case being that we are talking about rifles that are undoubtedly "military weapons" likely to be used by a member of the militia.

The above is correct...BUT, I was only using the case as an example of where the court allowed a complete ban of handguns (to show those people who claim the 2nd amendment means "the right to bear arms PERIOD" are mistaken in light of MANY cases handed down by The Court). I did not state that the case was on point with the current situation. However, thank you for clarifying the case for everyone (honestly).

FreedomIsNotFree
03-04-2006, 9:34 PM
The Bill of Rights does not grant you, or guarantee you any specific rights individually. The Bill of Rights was designed to prevent corruption to the Constitution by nature of amendments to the Constiution. The Constiution was designed to prevent corruption of the States.... The Rights safeguarded by the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution are considered pre-existing. We are assumed to have all these rights, and this document merely declares this and says that the government must recognize and respect them.

I have to disagree with you on this one Xeno. The Bill of Rights were not initially even in the Constitution. It was not until power was consolidated, to a certain extent, to the Federal Level while the Constitution was being ratified that the Bill of Rights came to be. Prior to that each of the States had their own Consitutions and there was no need to spell out the rights of the INDIVIDUAL.

The only way the Anti-Federalists, most outspoken was Richard Henry Lee, would get on board with ratification was to spell out these provisions....The Bill of Rights. These were to be clearly spelled out, the rights of people and the limitations of Government. These were to be protections against Federal tyranny for the individual, not the States. There were plenty of provisions in the Constitution to protect the states.....it was the Individual that was at issue with the Bill of Rights.

A State cant just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies. They have some leeway with interpretation, but if any State grossly acts outside of the 1st Amendment the Federal Courts can clearly step in...and have.

xenophobe
03-04-2006, 10:14 PM
Yes, the Bill of Rights was adoped after the Constitutioin was adopted as a protection from States corrupting the Constitution or the States themselves being corrupted... the Bill of Rights has power over the Constitution.

Even the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes no specific mention of individual rights. It more specifically addresses what the Government CANNOT do, not what YOU may do:

EDIT: In other words, you are free to do whatever you want unless the government restricts you, as opposed to, you are allowed to do what the government has granted you. The foundation of our government assumes that we are a free people with inalienable rights, and that the rules they set fourth were meant to keep the government from infringing upon them. The Bill of Rights does not specifically protect individual rights, it limits the power of the government to oppress. Reading prior drafts of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution clearly support the fact that your rights are not questionable, government action to infringe those rights, not on an individual basis but as a whole, is.


THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

No, a state can't just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies, but it can be legally restricted, as long as due process is followed. Hence, yelling "fire" in a movie theater, yelling "This is a stick up" in a bank, or "bomb" at an airport. There are restrictions to free speech everywhere, look at the 1995 Communications Decency Act. You're NOT allowed to say anything you want and have a right to say it. That's a fact.

As for being corrected, yes the key term is "grossly acts outside the 1st Amendment" and the Supreme Court will step in.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-04-2006, 11:03 PM
Yes, the Bill of Rights was adoped after the Constitutioin was adopted as a protection from States becoming corrupt.

Even the preamble to the Bill of Rights makes no specific mention of individual rights. It more specifically addresses what the Government CANNOT do, not what YOU may do:



No, a state can't just decide that the 1st Amendment no longer applies, but it can be legally restricted, as long as due process is followed. Hence, yelling "fire" in a movie theater, yelling "This is a stick up" in a bank, or "bomb" at an airport. There are restrictions to free speech everywhere, look at the 1995 Communications Decency Act. You're NOT allowed to say anything you want and have a right to say it. That's a fact.

As for being corrected, yes the key term is "grossly acts outside the 1st Amendment" and the Supreme Court will step in.


Yes, I agree that there are limitations to everything...even the Bill of Rights. I disagree with your opinion that the Bill of Rights, specifically, were added to protect only the States from the tyranny of the Federal Government. If you look at the writings of the time you will see that during ratification many States worried about the consolidation of power from the States to the Federal Governent. That is part of the reason they were NOT ratifying the Constitution. It was not until the Anti-Federalist demanded the Federal Constitution include such protections FOR THE INDIVIDUAL that they agreed to ratification.

The quote that you have in your previous post has to do with the INITIAL 12 Bill of Rights. Those were not ratified. Only 10 of the original 12 were ratified in order and that makes our current 1-10 Bill of Rights. I disagree that the quote backs up your claim that the main purpose of the Bill of Rights were to protect the States.

Here is some info that you may find interesting:

"The call for a bill of rights had been the anti-Federalists' most powerful weapon. Attacking the proposed Constitution for its vagueness and lack of specific protection against tyranny, Patrick Henry asked the Virginia convention, "What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances." The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis."


"A bill of rights had been barely mentioned in the Philadelphia convention, most delegates holding that the fundamental rights of individuals had been secured in the state constitutions. James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to thenew government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
From the National Archive. http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/constitution_history.html

Creeping Incrementalism
03-04-2006, 11:40 PM
I don't understand why we need to argue about incorporation. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights stands on its own. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, except for where states say they don't. In a series of articles in the CRPA's Firing Line on the origins on RKBA, it mentions that an old English law says the people have the RKBA, except where prohibited by law. Ours isnít like this. The 14th Amendment seems completely superfluous to me regarding this issue.

Regarding the argument that government can restrict some speech, political speech is not restricted, and that what the right to free speech was meant for. The 2nd Amendment was created so people could defend life and property, so laws keeping criminals from owning guns are constitutional, as they would use these tools to take, not defend, life and property. I'd say SB23 and Roberti-Roos are unconstitutional because they violate the indented purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Regarding the ruling on Morton Grove, could someone explain to me the reasoning that handguns aren't military weapons?

FreedomIsNotFree
03-04-2006, 11:49 PM
I don't understand why we need to argue about incorporation. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights stands on its own. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Period. End of discussion. It doesn't say the people have the right to keep and bear arms, except for where states say they don't. In a series of articles in the CRPA's Firing Line on the origins on RKBA, it mentions that an old English law says the people have the RKBA, except where prohibited by law. Ours isnít like this. The 14th Amendment seems completely superfluous to me regarding this issue.

Regarding the argument that government can restrict some speech, political speech is not restricted, and that what the right to free speech was meant for. The 2nd Amendment was created so people could defend life and property, so laws keeping criminals from owning guns are constitutional, as they would use these tools to take, not defend, life and property. I'd say SB23 and Roberti-Roos are unconstitutional because they violate the indented purpose of the 2nd Amendment.

Regarding the ruling on Morton Grove, could someone explain to me the reasoning that handguns aren't military weapons?


Here would be my understanding, even with the current opinions on the 2nd as they stand.

If you are not a Felon, mentally insane, dishonorably discharged...etc..etc, all other classes that have been legally restricted, you can own a rifle that would likely be used as a member of a militia. The militia would include all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and when called for service these men are expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

One could even argue that a fully automatic rifle would be considered common use in terms of todays weaponry.

FreedomIsNotFree
03-05-2006, 12:08 AM
Regarding the ruling on Morton Grove, could someone explain to me the reasoning that handguns aren't military weapons?


I think that decision is pure crap. In my opinion, U.S. v Miller, speaks of "arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time". What the court relied on in the Morton Grove case was the exact wording of the 2nd Amendment. They said that the right to specifically own a handgun was not guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment. They used absolutely ZERO evidence to back this assertion.

According to Miller you should be able to have a weapon that is in common use at the time. I think we would all agree that handguns are most definitely military weapons.....I think virtually EVERY military issues handguns to at least some of its soldiers.

xenophobe
03-05-2006, 2:16 AM
Yes, I agree that there are limitations to everything...even the Bill of Rights. I disagree with your opinion that the Bill of Rights, specifically, were added to protect only the States from the tyranny of the Federal Government.

Whoah there tiger. I didn't only say that, nor do I think you're getting exactly what I'm saying.

The Bill of Rights was created because of the fear that the Founders had. It is not there to grant you any specific persmissions, nor is it there to protect any specific individual. The Bill of Rights are restraints that were put into place to keep the government from growing corrupt. They do indeed protect the people, and will protect you individually in a case by case nature, but they were put in place to keep the government in check, to keep it from growing into something horrible.

Read James Madison's Apology to Congress in the fashion or context that they were on new ground without rules, creating a republic and paving a path to avoid creating a monster, like the governments they had abandoned in Europe. You might find a different perspective emerging from the one you're accustomed to.

Of course personal liberty was of paramount importance, but the framework for the Republic wasn't designed to protect your rights or mine. It was designed to create a government that would not tread down the path of infringing on the rights of states first, and the population of those states second. As you said, many of the 13 States had their own Bill of Rights enacted shortly after our Declaration of Independence. These state's Bill of Rights which protected the individual rights were enough to protect the people, and Congress only found it necessary to write one for the Republic, to keep the newly created (Federal) government in check.


The quote that you have in your previous post has to do with the INITIAL 12 Bill of Rights. Those were not ratified. Only 10 of the original 12 were ratified in order and that makes our current 1-10 Bill of Rights. I disagree that the quote backs up your claim that the main purpose of the Bill of Rights were to protect the States.

Wrong. The Preamble to the Bill of Rights is indeed in the final version that was ratified. Only the 2 Amendmens that were not ratified do not make up the Bill of Rights. The Preamble was not up for ratification, it's existence would still be valid if only 1 of the Amendmends were ratified. Even look at the National Archives, the Preamble is listed, as are the following 10 Amendments that were ratified. The Preamble is significant in the fact that it outlines exactly why the Bill of Rights' Amendments were created and why they are needed.

Nearly each Amendment has to do with the way Government treated the people

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


Read the Colonial Bill of Rights...

http://www.constitution.org/bcp/colright.htm

The issue of personal rights is definitely issued, but the outrage at the corruption, unfairness and of the government is what the Colonists had to deal with. Their personal rights weren't an issue as much as the way that the Parlimentary government was treating them, unfair, cruel... unconstitutional... The very reasons why we abandoned England to create our own government.

Then...

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

Read the Articles of Confederation. This is one of the first and very important documents that preceeded the US Constitution. You will see little mention of personal rights, what you will see is the limits and authority that they are placing with the Confederacy of The United States of America. Protecting individual rights are still almost completely and exclusively upon the states at this point. What this does give you is part of the framework for the US Constitution. Designed to determine how the Republic (Federal Government) is supposed to interact between the states, NOT the individual. Individuals are respectively part of the State, of which the States are part of the Confederacy.

Anyways, I'm tired of writing now. Your turn. lol

FreedomIsNotFree
03-05-2006, 3:02 AM
While I agree with a large part of what you are saying the fact remains that the Bill of Rights were added AFTER the Constitution was intially drafted. As previously agreed upon by you prior to the drafting of the US Consitution each State had their own Constitution which largely covered their individual rights. At that time there was no need to include explicit individual rights into the US Constitution.....but things changed.......they were having trouble with ratification amongst many States.

As the federalists sought to consolidate power the smaller and more independent States were very vocal(putting it lightly) about their opposition to the new Federal Powers. The only way they agreed to ratify the Constitution was to have a "clear declaration of rights" included into the US Constitution. I could quote transcript after transcript which would attest to the reluctance of the anti-federalists, but I think you get my point.

Each State had their own Constitution.....There was no need to include individual rights in the Articles of Confederation. By 1780 EVERY state had an individual Constitution and the Articles of Confederation were written to give the Federal Government extremely limited authority....and although it was very influencial in regards to our US Constitution it was primarily developed to fight and win a war...not stand as the final Constitution.

I still stand firm with my earlier contention that the Bill of Rights were added to the Constitution to have a "clear declaration of rights" when the anti-federalist balked at ratification.

"The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature."



Thanks for the debate.....I'm enjoying it.

xenophobe
03-05-2006, 3:47 AM
Yes, definitely a good discussion.

You put it well, and isn't different than what I'm saying:
As the federalists sought to consolidate power the smaller and more independent States were very vocal(putting it lightly) about their opposition to the new Federal Powers. The only way they agreed to ratify the Constitution was to have a "clear declaration of rights" included into the US Constitution.

The Bill of Rights was enacted to prevent the Federal government from upsurping authority from the States. It is upon the State government to provide for the rights of the individual, is the way that I see the picture.


I could quote transcript after transcript which would attest to the reluctance of the anti-federalists, but I think you get my point.

I really do suggest you read the Apology to Congress by James Madison in my perspective. It's actually quite enlightening... it may not change your opinion, but I think we'll both agree there were many facets that make the whole picture...

paradox
03-05-2006, 6:16 AM
If anyone's interest has been piqued by this wonderful conversation, please spend some time reading the writings of the anti-federalists. (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm)

They pegged pretty much everything that has gone wrong with our republic before it even existed. I shudder to think what our country would be like today if they were completly ignored...