They Want to Take Your Guns

It very PLAINLY said that the Constitution didn't apply to gun rights

You wanna talk about "god given right" that's an entirely different discussion

 

What are you talking about?

Cruikshank was a Federal SC ruling. Nunn was a STATE court ruling.

One state ruling does not over ride another state's nor do I claim so.

Not living in Georgia...Nunn means nothing to me

 

You seem to misunderstand. I'm not anti gun. I believe it is in the pervue of the state and local authorities.

I lived most of my life in NJ and currently live in NY. Both states in my view have very reasonable gun laws...and I own guns

 

The united states supreme court affirmed Nunn in the Heller decision, however.

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our
opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”

 

Nothing in the case supports this.
The entire question in Miller was if the 2nd protected the ownership and use of a particular firearm by a citizen not associated with the militia.
Miller held that for the right of said citizen to own and use a weapon to be protected by the 2nd, the weapon must be suitable for service in the militia.
Nothing in Miller even implies that a person must be part of the militia for the protections of the 2nd to apply to him.
You choose to be wrong.

 

So you agree - nothing in term "well regulated militia" specifies that for "the people" to enjoy the protection of the 2nd, they must be part of the militia.
Thank you. Glad to see you finally came around.

 

Why do you lie to yourself? Why do you lie to us?

 

Not if you want to argue than more guns = more gun-related violence.
In that case, the relevant statistic is violence per unit of guns -- how else do you get "more" guns?

 

You know this is not true; nothing in the cases you cited support your position in any way.

 

Nunn was a 1846 state court ruling that was not precedent setting for the Federal SC. It may or may not have been referenced in Heller and it hardly matters since it was NOT a precedent

What WAS precedent setting was Cruikshank and Miller . Cruikshank stated that gun rights were not addressed in the Second and Miller tied those rights to the "well regulated militia" clause.

The activist Scalia decision of course IGNORED precedent

 

How does this translate to "Didn't Trump just decide that being crazy should not prohibit owning a gun"?

Can you show that the mental disorders in question quality someone as "crazy"?
That they clearly illustrate a person is a danger to himself or others?

Oh damn -- that Constitution again.
Gets in the way of the ability to strip people's rights with a pen and a phone, eh?

This remains unsupportable nonsense.

 

Funny what happens when you read the entire text...

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. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government

Since then, the 2nd has been incorporated against actions by the state.

But, you know this. Stop lying to yourself.

 

You know this is not true.

 

Now you're presupposing that posters here are stupid. That's okay. I will play along.

Nunn v. State was a state court ruling that clarified the Second Amendment. It was decided in 1846.

In 1859 the state of Texas issued a similar ruling in Cockrum v. State.

So, Lesh wants to know why that is important. Let us explain:

Rulings passed by a state supreme court are binding only in that state. In other states, however, they are called persuasive authority that other higher courts can look to in order to interpret the Constitution. Nunn v. State was the first time a gun law was overturned on Second Amendment grounds. Other states followed suit with the Nunn decision. All of them were, obviously, in agreement.

Federal courts could have come to a different conclusion. NO federal court was bound by any of the state court interpretations. Yet the federal courts looked at the standing precedents in those states and the federal courts RULINGS / HOLDINGS supported the standing precedents set in Nunn v. State, Cockrum v. State, etc.

Lesh cannot show you any court case that overturns Nunn v. Georgia. It is, to this day, the law that is applicable in this state. It is consistent with United States Supreme Court RULINGS. The legal logic of the lower state court rulings help guide the current federal rulings by giving some case precedent whereby the Second Amendment could be interpreted.

Lesh wants to argue incessantly about what the Second Amendment means. IF it meant what s/he claims then the laws of many states would have been over-turned. Today we have a myriad of UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT RULINGS interpreting the Constitution.

The United States Supreme Court RULED (in the Cruikshank decision for example) that the Right to keep and bear Arms exists and that it is not a Right guaranteed in the Constitution NOR is it dependent upon that instrument for its existence. In both the recent Heller and McDonald decisions ruled on by the United States Supreme Court THEY determined that you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.

 

The United States Supreme Court RULED (in the Cruikshank decision for example) that the Right to keep and bear Arms exists and that it is not a Right guaranteed in the Constitution

AS I've been saying

 

As you have been incorrectly saying, and you know it, as you know Cruikshank says no such thing.

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. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government

 

That's the WORDING of the Decision...

 

Which proves your statement wrong.
It discusses the guarantee of the right of keep and bear arms by the US Constitution, directly:
The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed
Why do you lie to yourself?

 

Saying stupid **** endlessly doesn't advance your case at all.

Check the actual wording of Cruikshank. You're simply wrong

 

You and I both know I posted the text from Cruikshank that disproves your claim.
You can lie to yourself about it all you want - the above statement will never change.

 

I think you meant purview.

Because of the over-all objective of the Second Amendment, since Congress cannot outlaw military arms that have a self defense / military use, it stands to follow that, constitutionally, states may not outlaw them either.

At the end of the day, the common law and case law of this country is unequivocally clear to me:

[A]ll men are born equally free," and possess "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity.” George Mason, father of the Bill of Rights



Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.” Samuel Adams, American statesman, political philosopher and one of the Founding Fathers of the United States

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
1822: Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

In order for Lesh to over-come the mountains of evidence s/he would have to address the many posts that s/he avoided between page 9 of this thread and this posting. In order for Lehs's opinion to be correct s/he would have to

* Ignore at least a thousand quotes by the founding fathers stated with regard to the Right to keep and bear Arms

*Dismiss more than fifty court citations used by posters in this thread

* Then explain why ALL of those two things are somehow irrelevant to what the law means

If they come for Lesh's firearms during the next expansion of gun grabbing moves, s/he can come back and tell us again how s/he is a gun owner and backs Uncle Scam's gun grabbing schemes.

 

YOU'VE been proven WRONG on the interpretation of Cruikshank.... over and over and over again. I've explained it to you four times and you didn't even bother to READ the freaking posts. Between TOG 6 and myself, you have been shown NOT to have a case.

 

Proven wrong?

I quoted YOUR post. YOUR post showed that in Cruikshank the Court said that the "right to bear arms" does NOT come from the Constitution

 

Then perhaps it should be explained by yourself, precisely where the right to bear arms does indeed come from, since the united state supreme court has stated that it does indeed exist. What is the source of its origin?

 

That's an entirely different discussion.

Bottom line is that the Court set Predecent by saying it does NOT come from the Constitution.

I am not anti-gun (although I am for reasonable gun laws) and I own guns. I do not believe that the right to do so comes from the Constitution an that is how the Court ruled in Cruikshank