PDA

View Full Version : Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right


DisgruntledReaper
12-28-2012, 10:01 PM
This was posted on another forum and there is free blessing to cross post:)

Just because/even IF 'they' were to remove the 2nd, the Right/or Rights DONT go away... please read....

' Most americans don't understand how our rights and the Constitution or Bill of Rights work or were designed.
The below was put together by Bob Greenslade and it explains it well.


Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right
Posted by Bob Greenslade

Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.

Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.

A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.

A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.

In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

In order to help explain this constitutional principle, I reluctantly decided to reference a United States Supreme Court case from 1875. Normally, I would not cite a court case to support a constitutional principle because too many opinions do not reflect the true intent of the Framers. However, I decided to make an exception because this decision states this constitutional principle clearly and concisely and has never been overturned.

In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:


Become a member and support the TAC!

“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.

Note: There is a school of thought that the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003. Bob focuses his writing on issues surrounding the federal government and the Constitution. He believes politicians at the federal level, through ignorance or design, are systematically dismantling the Constitution in an effort to expand their power and consolidate control over the American people. He has dedicated himself to resurrecting the true intent of the Constitution in the hope that the information will contribute, in some small way, to restoring the system of limited government established by the Constitution.


If you enjoyed this post:
Click Here to Get the Free Tenth Amendment Center Newsletter,
yellowhand is online now Report Post Reply With Quote

tcrpe
12-28-2012, 10:22 PM
Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.


Well, then, according to this expert, the Bill of Rights contained 11 amendments.

Check my math, boys.

Sakiri
12-28-2012, 10:52 PM
Do you have a link to the source?

I have a Labour Party Brit to PO.

speleogist
12-28-2012, 11:07 PM
None of this makes sense to people that believe guns are a privilege to own and it never will.

mrdd
12-29-2012, 4:00 AM
Do you have a link to the source?

I have a Labour Party Brit to PO.

Well, this ain't Britain.

cdtx2001
12-29-2012, 4:15 AM
Wow, the founding fathers would be proud to know that someone still gets it.

After reading all that it's clear to see now that all 3 branches of the government are a bunch of imbeciles. They have been steering this country away from the Constitution for years.

The War Wagon
12-29-2012, 4:43 AM
Repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not Abolish any Right
Posted by Bob Greenslade

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.



:facepalm: Gobbledygook.

Our rights are a gift of GOD - we are endowed with them BY the Creator. The ENTIRETY of the Constitution, the United States of America, and Planet Earth may disappear, as far as THAT goes - the rights REMAIN.

They were mankind's RIGHT before there was a United States. The Founding Fathers - good Christian souls that they were, regardless what gobbledygook mush may be taught for, 'American,' history these days, pretends to the contrary :rolleyes: - merely RECOGNIZED this fact, when establishing the 'American experiment.'

Glad I could clear that up for everyone. :oji:

Tarn_Helm
12-29-2012, 5:04 AM
This was posted on another forum and there is free blessing to cross post:)

Just because/even IF 'they' were to remove the 2nd, the Right/or Rights DONT go away... please read....

' Most americans don't understand how our rights and the Constitution or Bill of Rights work or were designed.
The below was put together by Bob Greenslade and it explains it well. . . .

The Bill of Rights does not confer a right to keep and bear arms, according to the SCOTUS. The BoR recognizes a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html):
“The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”

But then again, this is a weird and sad SCOTUS decision about an atrocity . . .
:(

The God-given natural rights theory of the origin of "unalienable rights" puts them out of reach of human critique but not human questioning.

A diabolical opponent of the theory would argue this: "If they come from God, then they must be removed from the Constitution since they are an unconstitutional mixing of church and state."

My personal view is that it is more effective to stick simply with the argument that the rights are there and can only be deleted by a Constitutional convention--wherever they come from.
:cool:

cdtx2001
12-29-2012, 5:18 AM
Ya know, this really should be a sticky.

Everyone should read it as a refresher from your history class, or get a lesson that hasn't been taught in schools today.

mt4design
12-29-2012, 5:41 AM
Excellent. Thank you for posting it.

Moonshine
12-29-2012, 6:27 AM
Would a repeal require a constitutional convention? Good luck getting red states to go along with that.

socal2310
12-29-2012, 6:53 AM
Would a repeal require a constitutional convention? Good luck getting red states to go along with that.

Yes it would, and no, that wouldn't fly.

At the same time, it's important for all of us to understand that the Bill of Rights doesn't give us anything. It merely attempts to restrain the U.S. Government from infringing upon rights we have by virtue of existing.

It is impossible to overstate the danger posed by the majority of people believing that the government condescends to "grant" us rights, quite apart from the rank Idolatry inherent in that understanding of the Bill of Rights which is objectionable to me in and of itself.

Ryan

choprzrul
12-29-2012, 7:12 AM
I've been preaching this on my Facebook page for some time. I also spread this on local news outlet's website's comments sections to news stories.

I typically reference the very foundation upon which our nation and Constitution are built:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This knows no borders. ALL people are born with exactly the same set of civil (natural) rights regardless of nation. How those rights are exercised is a function of the level of oppression of one's government. Less oppression, more exercise of rights.

Founding principles are difficult for anti's to argue against without appearing as oppressive bigots; and I have no problem naming them as such.

Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.

Don't Tread On My Civil Rights.

.

Cobrafreak
12-29-2012, 7:17 AM
Excellent article. Just out of curiosity, then if this is true, How in the world did the Government get away with the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?

choprzrul
12-29-2012, 7:36 AM
Excellent article. Just out of curiosity, then if this is true, How in the world did the Government get away with the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?

Heller & McDonald didn't exist yet.

.

donw
12-29-2012, 7:51 AM
I've been preaching this on my Facebook page for some time. I also spread this on local news outlet's website's comments sections to news stories.

I typically reference the very foundation upon which our nation and Constitution are built:



This knows no borders. ALL people are born with exactly the same set of civil (natural) rights regardless of nation. How those rights are exercised is a function of the level of oppression of one's government. Less oppression, more exercise of rights.

Founding principles are difficult for anti's to argue against without appearing as oppressive bigots; and I have no problem naming them as such.

Gun Rights ARE Civil Rights.

Don't Tread On My Civil Rights.

.

well said! if more would read that part of the Declaration of Independence, they's see the whole context.

it's really not difficult if one looks at that period of history...our founding forefathers feared BIG government AND standing professional armies... those very things were raving Europe at the time; they wanted to prevent that here in "The colonies"...

fiddletown
12-29-2012, 8:06 AM
The practical issue, however, isn't the right. It's having a remedy for actions by government in derogation of that right.

cineski
12-29-2012, 8:10 AM
They aren't imbeciles. They are tyrants.

Wow, the founding fathers would be proud to know that someone still gets it.

After reading all that it's clear to see now that all 3 branches of the government are a bunch of imbeciles. They have been steering this country away from the Constitution for years.

Bhobbs
12-29-2012, 8:13 AM
Lets see how long we would have any guns if there was no 2A in the Bill of Rights. How well did our court cases go before the 2A was incorporated?

GaryV
12-29-2012, 8:20 AM
The problem is not with the Constitution, but with the courts. Even if a repealing amendment didn't include specific language granting the government the power to restrict or remove the right, the courts would interpret any repealing amendment as having the intent to do so.

I understand and agree with the basic logic of the article. Repealing an amendment like the 2nd, which simply recognizes an existing right and grants nothing, is quite different from repealing the 18th Amendment, which granted the government a power it hadn't previously had. A repeal of such a granting amendment would clearly strip away whatever was previously granted, whereas the repeal of an amendment like the 2nd merely removes language that describes a right that exists outside, and preexists, the Constitution.

But unfortunately the courts have largely fallen into the very pattern of abuse of government power that the Federalists feared when they opposed the inclusion of a bill of rights in the Constitution - namely that the government would interpret such a document as exhaustive, and that only those rights explicitly listed enjoy "constitutional" protection, despite the 9th and 10th Amendments, which have largely been done away with already. And generally a lot of people endorse this practice, at least for rights of which they don't approve. So if the 2nd Amendment were repealed in any way, the courts would almost certainly view that as a revocation of the right.

SilverTauron
12-29-2012, 8:25 AM
Thanks for the post.Unfortunately the Founders forgot a detail-they didnt plan on a situation where Americans voluntary elected a tyrannical government.

anthonyca
12-29-2012, 8:30 AM
Excellent article. Just out of curiosity, then if this is true, How in the world did the Government get away with the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?

The government doesn't recognize inalienable rights. How do we have the patriot act, NDAA, forfeiture laws, ect?

donw
12-29-2012, 8:34 AM
Thanks for the post.Unfortunately the Founders forgot a detail-they didnt plan on a situation where Americans voluntary elected a tyrannical government.

this^^^^^is a statement that needs to be very carefully thought about by all...let's hope they will come to their senses and see obama for what he really is...:(

if it's not too late...:confused::(

Paladin
12-29-2012, 8:35 AM
That's what Americans historically believed which is why the totalitarian statists have been displacing Americans w/foreign immigrants: (1) telling Americans to not reproduce due to Population Bomb and (2) for Women's Lib to "free them" to work, (3) flooding our nation w/over 40M legal and illegal immigrants over the past 40 years, (4) telling our kids and the immigrants that there's nothing special and much to be ashamed about America and that foreign ways/laws/governments/customs are equal to or better than America's (under the guise of "tolerance" and "multiculturalism"), and (5) w/foreign language voters guide, radio & TV channels, and internet access and cheap air travel, there's no reason for foreigners (yes, I used the dreaded "f" word), to even try to assimilate, to become "Americanized"....

To speak against the displacement of our people is to be called "racist" by our own teachers/profs, media, and politicians, and ostracized by your friends.

Now, very few of us believe or even care about our rights and their source.

Soon, we who know how this country was meant to be run will be a politically irrelevant minority.... :mad:

See Ann Coulter:
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-11-14.html

and Pat Buchanan:
http://townhall.com/columnists/patbuchanan/2012/07/27/in_the_long_run_is_the_gop_dead/page/full/

DannyInSoCal
12-29-2012, 8:45 AM
Excellent article. Just out of curiosity, then if this is true, How in the world did the Government get away with the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?

The delusional political hacks can pass anything they want -

If they lie enough -

To either voters or other political hacks -

Or bribe enough -

To either voters or other political hacks.

Then it's up to patriots to fight through due process to reclaim our rights -

Given away by lies and bribes...

EM2
12-29-2012, 8:54 AM
Excellent article. Just out of curiosity, then if this is true, How in the world did the Government get away with the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994?

The government doesn't recognize inalienable rights. How do we have the patriot act, NDAA, forfeiture laws, ect?





Simple
Many of those in our government are tyrannical in nature and will simply ignore or subvert our constitutional protections.
The people are too lazy, ignorant or apathetic to do anything about it.
Laws & constitutions are only as effective as the people who live by them.

Sakiri
12-29-2012, 10:49 PM
Well, this ain't Britain.


No, it isn't, but he likes to post crap to his FB page and argue with me about how we don't need guns and that the UK is doing just fine without them and how we should repeal the second.

I enjoy watching him rage.