XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1189838535.148720.287360@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 14, 8:02 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> Leif  wrote   
   >> innews:1189747146.028761.56010@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Sep 13, 4:48 pm, "RSweeney"  wrote:   
   >> >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> >>news:1189707451.827623.145790@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >> >> > 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.   
   >>   
   >> >> The 14th amendment says otherwise. And since the debate on WHY the   
   >> >> 14th amendment was needed specifically included the abuse of state   
   >> >> laws to deny black citizens the right to bear arms, it's clear that   
   >> >> the 14th's INTENT was prohibit this.   
   >>   
   >> >> Additionally, SCOTUS in Presser makes it clear that any state law   
   >> >> that would deny arms to the citizens would run afoul of the second.-   
   >> >> Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> >> - Show quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:  No, Presser does not say that.  What the Supreme Court   
   >> > said in Presser was this:   
   >>   
   >> > "But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment [the   
   >> > Second Amendment] prohibits the legislation in question lies in the   
   >> > fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of   
   >> > Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the   
   >> > States."   
   >>   
   >> You left some of it out.  Is your name Lone Weasel?  Add this to your   
   >> wordings from Presser:   
   >>   
   >> " It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms   
   >> constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United   
   >> States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the   
   >> general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot,   
   >> even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view,   
   >> prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the   
   >> United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public   
   >> security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the   
   >> general government. But, as already stated, we think [116 U.S. 252, 266]   
   >> it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."   
   >>   
   >> You are correct in that it does not mention the 2A, however, it makes the   
   >> explicit statement that the state cannot prohibit the people from keeping   
   >> and bearing arms so as to prevent them from their duty.   
   >>   
   >> --   
   >> RD (The Sandman)   
   >>   
   >> "Once you sacrifice rights, it's hard to get those rights protected   
   >> again."   
   >>   
   >> Senator Dianne Feinstein, on White House pressure to expand government   
   >> surveillance, meant for suspected terrorists.   
   >>   
   >> Too bad she doesn't feel that way about other rights like the right to   
   >> keep and bear arms.- Hide quoted text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  That's an interesting paragraph.  Boiled down, what it   
   > really says is that the states can't stop the federal government from   
   > calling upon citizens to contribute to the national defense   
      
   And to be able to provide that contribution must have arms. Hence, the   
   states can't prohibit their citizens from having arms.   
      
   You stopped a bit early in your analysis.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)