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:1189839530.961699.73420@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 14, 2:55 pm, "RSweeney"  wrote:   
   >> "Leif"  wrote in message   
   >>   
   >> news:1189737624.821247.322340@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> > On Sep 13, 10:44 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >> >  wrote:   
   >> >> "Spaz"  wrote   
   >> >> innews: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.   
   >>   
   >> >> Actually, there are two.   
   >>   
   >> >> California state laws - San Fran is not a home rule city   
   >>   
   >> >> And Presser v Illinois   
   >>   
   >> >> --   
   >> >> 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.   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:   What the Supreme Court said in Presser is that the   
   >> > Second Amendment is a limitation on the federal government only:   
   >>   
   >> Let's read the words of SCOTUS in Presser.. it directly refutes your   
   >> claim:   
   >>  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.- Hide quoted   
   >> text -   
   >>   
   >> - Show quoted text -   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  The paragraph from Presser that you quote above has   
   > nothing to do with the Second Amendment.   
      
   True, it simply states that even without the 2nd Amendment the states   
   couldn't enact legislation that would disarm the people of the state.   
      
   So even without the 2nd Amendment gun control would STILL be   
   Unconstitutional for the States.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)