CA constitutional assult on AWB

[FreedomIsNotFree]

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]

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]

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]

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]

If anyone's interest has been piqued by this wonderful conversation, please spend some time reading the writings of the anti-federalists.

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...