XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns
XPost: talk.politics.guns
From: heekster@iwxt.net
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:49:11 -0700, Leif
wrote:
>On Sep 13, 11:22 am, Peter Franks wrote:
>> Leif wrote:
>> > On Sep 13, 4:52 am, "Topp@Work" wrote:
>> >> "Spaz" wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:9LCdnZ1NOcJU5HXbnZ2dnUVZ_j6dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> >>> "RSweeney" wrote in message
>> >>>news:tq2dnRvRTuoP9nXbnZ2dnUVZ_sqinZ2d@comcast.com...
>> >>>> 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.
>> >>> That's true. So there's no reason the local government of San Francisco
>> >>> can't implement their own gun ban.
>> >> Except it violates State law.....
>> >> And cities can not violate state law
>>
>> > Leif speaking: The SECOND AMENDMENT provides no reason why the local
>> > government of San Francisco can't implement their own gun ban.
>>
>> Ya, prior to 1866 that may have been the case.
>>
>> Amendment XIV changed all of that, though:
>>
>> "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
>> privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"- Hide quoted
text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>Leif speaking: The Supreme Court has not incorporated the Second
>Amendment against the states.
See 14th Amendment. BTW, the SC incorporates nothing. The SC rules
on constitutionality, and they have been known to be wrong.
>There's no reason why the ever should,
>since the Second Amendment was intended to defend the state militia
>system.
The militia antedated the existence of the states. It isn't a system,
it is an American common law requirement, inherited from English
common law, see fyrd. It's been around a long time.
The 2nd Amendment prohibits infringement of the individual RKBA by the
government.
This is absolutely pre-requisite to ensuring a pool of armed
individuals from which militia may be drawn.
Federal Militia Laws, 1792, et al., assume the RKBA, in that
individuals serving in the militia, are required to provide their own
arms and accoutrements.
This reduces all of your arguments for a sole militia interpretation
of the 2nd amendment to the pig excrement from which you fashioned
them.
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792
"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six
months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a
sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a
pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four
cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each
cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a
good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited
to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall
appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise
or into service, except, that when called out on company days to
exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned
Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and
espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this
Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall
be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound;
and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms,
ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the
same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for
debt or for the payment of taxes."
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
