URGENT-VERY BAD NEWS

[Paul B.]

I just recieved a phone call from the Second Amendment Foundation. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (jurisdiction covers all of western U.S.) has decided that the Second Amendment applies only to the states, and not the individual. These sons of bitches are all Clinton appointees. It figures. SAF wants to take it to the Supreme Court. Maybe it is time for this. Bring it to a head and settle it once and for all. Then see if we need to buy a lot of rope.
It's a foregone conclusion that my BP is completely off the scale. I apologize for the cussing, but it is how I feel.
Paul B.

 

[DC]

Ya know...
I wonder what the Feds would do if a State formed a State militia that had only allegience to that State..i.e. wouldn't recognize any Fed authority or orders?

Basically, these scum are perverting the 2nd A into the Feds saying that the subordinate state gov'ts can be armed. Interesting when all the others in the Bill of Rights are restrictions upon the Fed gov't. Personally I don't recognize the authority of the Feds to interpret the Bill of Rights

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"




[This message has been edited by DC (edited August 03, 1999).]

 

[Jack 99]

Which case? Not necessarily all bad news. The SF Court of Appeals has ruled this way before. Now we have that Texas case where the Court of Appeals there decided that Dentist DOES have an individual RKBA (guy had a restraining order against him, lower courts and the Appeals court decided that his RKBA superceded the restraining order).

Now the Supreme Court has to take this issue head on since there can't be two lower courts with contrary decisions. The most recent Supreme Court decision (didn't involve 2nd Amendment issues, but they touched on it) was worded to the effect that "among individual rights are those guaranteed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th Amendments." Sorry I don't know the cases that well.

I for one am ready for this nonsense to be decided on. IS WE, OR AIN'T WE FREE!!! It's time that we got a clear ruling from the Supreme Court on the 2nd.

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

 

[Jack 99]

Here are those cases from a thread on AR15.com:

** CBS FAILED to cite the 1990 Supreme Court reference to the Second Amendment in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez that stated, "`the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments ... refers to a class of persons who are part of the national community." Each of these rights are
individual.

** CBS FAILED to report this year's federal court ruling from the Northern District of Texas, U.S. v. Emerson, in which the federal judge overturned a federal gun law on Second Amendment grounds and argued, "The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."

 

[Paul Revere]

There will come a day when all of us will feel individually threatened by this zealous leftist ideology. But threat not my friends, Big Brother uses intimidation to scare you. Hopefully BB will scare you into a reality check. Maybe make you realize that the shadow that lurks behind you is only your own.

All of these leftist appointed judges that make these pre-determined decisions are part of the propaganda scheme. Re-read the 2nd Amendment and show me where it says, "shall be infringed".

 

[Brett Bellmore]

Jack's right, Paul; About the only way you can be certain that the Supreme court will take an appeal is if different Circuit courts disagree, so that the Supreme court has to step in and resolve the disagreement. This ruling by the 9th circuit sets the stage for a showdown in the Supreme court, and it's about time! We haven't had this good a court in decades, and, sadly, there's every possilbity that a Republican President would appoinit judges who were every bit as anti-gun as Clinton would.

In other words, let's nail this thing down while we've got halfway decent odds; They aren't going to get better, barring Harry Browne winning in 2000!

 

[BigPig]

Seeing as the Militia is made up of "All able bodied males aged 17 to 45" (its in the US code, but I forget the number) and nowhere in 2nd Amendment does it say "the right of states to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" *I* dont think that I dont have a right to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS!!!

 

[Paul B.]

Bigpig. The U.S. Code numbers you are looking for is Title 10. Sec. 311.
Paul B.

 

[Jack 99]

I wish I had saved the link from a while back. Basically, the line of logic ("what's that?" said the Anti) was that the 2nd is A) specifically an individual right ("the right of the PEOPLE") and B) the "militia" wording is not exclusionary. That is to say, the clause does NOT read "the only reason for the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be part of a militia." It may be the pre-eminent right, but not the only one.

------------------
"Put a rifle in the hands of a Subject, and he immediately becomes a Citizen." -- Jeff Cooper

 

[HankL]

Jack, The Federalist Papers come to mind. None of the common sense diatribes at time are in any way law though. Just folks saying what they really meant when they were forced into putting their words down in pencil and pen. Back then, everyone knew what they meant, there weren't several million demigods who we eventually employed, by various ways trying to make a living off of the rest of us. I think that our government has become self serving to the point of insanity!
IMHFO Hank

 

[BTR]

Here's a link to Title X, defining a militia, it's a great thing to bookmark:
http://www.arcrafts.com/think/Techdata/militiadef.html

Also, look up "militia" in the dictionary, as the definition is very telling.

Personally, I think the ONLY way we could get close to winning the debate is if we get a strong Supreme Court decision supporting the individual right to own guns. Who knows if it will ever happen though.

 

[Ed]

I for one am ready for this nonsense to be decided on. IS WE, OR AIN'T WE FREE!!! It's time that we got a clear ruling from the Supreme Court on the 2nd.

Jack99- I agree, let's get it settled one way or the other. If the SC goes against us we won't be much worse off than we are now, since Congress acts as though there is no 2nd Amendment anyway.

I think that if we get a bad ruling it might just wake up some of the 95% of gunowners who don't do anything to help protect their rights. I think that a lot of then, including a big majority of hunters, believe that the 2nd will protect their guns if it ever comes to a showdown. If they see that isn't the case they might become active in the legislative arena.

One other thought, the 2nd and 7th Amendments are the only two of the original ten that have never been "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment protections by the SC. Up until the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal government, over the years since then the SC has used the "incorporation doctrine" to extend most of them to include the state goverments, but not the 2nd or the 7th. That means that the 2nd only restricts the Federal government from infringing the RKBA, the states and local governments aren't affected. The anti-gun states like MA and NJ could still be as oppressive as they want, and the SC decision wouldn't have any effect.

I believe the last decision on this was in the '50's when Justice Frankfurter wrote that it was a settled matter that the 2nd was a restraint on Federal government only. I don't know the name of the case, but it could probably be found by reviewing Frankfurter's opinions.

The best of all worlds would be for the SC to decide the 2nd protects an individual right, and then incorporate it into the protections afforded by the 14th, meaning it would also restrain state and local lawmakers. This probably won't happen, but at least an individual right decision would get the Feds off our backs. Then we could go after the state and local laws in the state courts, at least in those states which have a RKBA clause in their constitution.

If there are any constitutional lawyer out there who could comment on the "incorporation" doctrine, please give us some more info, it seems like a gray area to me.