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:1190004412.644162.155400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 16, 8:16 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> Leif  wrote   
   >> innews: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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)