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:1189919126.823592.191990@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 15, 7:57 am, "RD (The Sandman)"
> wrote:
>> Leif wrote
>> innews: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. The
>> > states can't, for instance, tell the federal government that it can't
>> > open a military facility or train soldiers within their boundaries.
>>
>> > Another interesting feature of the paragraph is the way in which it
>> > uses the words "bearing arms." It speaks of "citizens capable of
>> > bearing arms." Contrary to the argument of the Guns Unlimited folks
>> > that "bearing arms" means simply "carrying arms," it is obvious in
>> > this paragraph written by the Supreme Court that "bearing arms" means
>> > "rendering military service."
>>
>> > The paragraph starts off saying, " It is undoubtedly true that all
>> > citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military
>> > force or reserve militia of the United States..." "All citizens"
>> > includes all persons born in the United States, of all ages. Some 90-
>> > year-old women and 6-year-old girls are capable of "carrying arms."
>> > They're just not capable of "bearing arms" (rendering military
>> > service).
>>
>> > The Second Amendment uses the phrase "bear arms" as the Supreme Court
>> > used "bearing arms," that is, in its military meaning of "render
>> > military service."
>>
>> The Second Amendment is a militia amendment. What would you expect? It
>> is not about hunting or sport shooting. The main point of contention
>> about the 2A is not whether or not it addresses the militia but in what
>> context it addresses the right of the people. I maintain that the right
>> of the people is to be protected from the federal government so that the
>> states may draw from a resource of armed citizenry for its manpower needs
>> when called to service. It protects the state militia from being
>> disarmed through benign neglect of the feds in Art I(8)(16). It is not
>> the source of RKBA but only protects that right from the feds.
>>
>> --
>> 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: If I understand your meaning, I can agree with a lot
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
