They Want to Take Your Guns

Except for the fact that the united states supreme court agreed with the precedent of Nunn in their ruling, while stating that the precedent in Cruikshank did not apply.

Which is of no relevance. The precedent has now been set, just as when it was determined under the Roosevelt administration that the commerce clause allowed the federal government to regulate whatever it wished under the standard of interstate commerce. It is the same precedent used to determine that the federal government can force the public to buy goods and services they do not wish for, and monetarily punish them for noncompliance.

For all intents and purposes of the discussion, Cruikshank and Miller have ceased to exist. The precedent set by Heller has been reaffirmed twice in both McDonald and Caetano which has gone even further than the original case. The precedent has been set, either rightly or wrongly, and there is nothing that you can do or say to change that fact. It is the precedent by which you and countless millions of others now have to live by, regardless of whether or not it is correct.

 

Nunn was NOT a precedent setting decision since it was NOT a SC case. Cruikshank was.

Th fact that an activist Court decided to ignore actual precedent in both Cruikshank and Miller has been duly noted.

Claiming that a previous decision "ceases to exist" is nonsense. That simply means it ceases to exist until another Court rules against Heller and McDonald. All you are saying is that our current Court no longer gives a crap about precedent.

So much for stare decisis.

 

First you admit that the precedent is that the Right to keep and bear arms does NOT come from the Constitution. Then you want to hand that Right to local governments. IF that proposition were true, the federal government would have NO authority to legislate spit regarding the Right to keep and bear Arms.

I've witnessed on this thread the kinds of so - called "reasonable" gun laws you advocate. I've also shown, using an example from my own neighborhood, how such laws would have cost a law abiding homeowner their life had she been limited by magazine capacity.

Democrats claim they don't want gun control, but they destroy their entire argument when they start babbling on about "reasonable" (sic) gun restrictions. The reality is, the liberals go from magazine capacity to mode of firing (semi, single shot, select fire, etc.) to type of firearms. An example would be that bill Reagan signed outlawing the practice of civilians legally modifying semi auto weapons to select fire. Where was the reasonableness of this law? The liberals could not find one, single, solitary time wherein a legally modified firearm had been used in a crime. What "problem" are the left attempting to address?

NONE of the proposed solutions Lesh is for addresses any legitimate issue. S/he thinks if s/he decides that a law is "reasonable" then it should become law. And I feel that I know the value of my life and the lives of loved ones more than Lesh. I cannot turn back the clock on technology. Furthermore, governments have proven that they cannot be trusted. Our forefathers understood this and they left us in control, not bureaucrats nor the majority vote of people like Lesh who would handicap me by deciding what my life is worth and what I should be able to own or not own in the defense of my life.

Thankfully, we live in a constitutional Republic and we have a God given, unalienable Right to Life. That means that my life was not given to me by government and they cannot decide what we can do with our bodies nor what we use to defend that life with - so long as we don't infringe upon the unalienable Rights of another. THAT is the de jure / lawful parameters of constitutional government. Lesh deliberately misinterprets the Constitution and does not want to discuss the origins of our Right to keep and bear Arms. Posts # 169 and # 170 on page 9 of this thread were carefully ignored by Lesh. So, you have to study really hard to see what his / her criticisms are really worth.

 

The reality is, many courts do not care about precedents. Look at all the stuff that was written by the founding fathers before, during and after the War of Independence. Read the Debates, Federalist Papers, and their other writings leading up to the Constitution. Without giving you thousands of references, their view was simple:

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." Patrick Henry

Even the Heller decision is an example of government over-reach. While Cruikshank was plain in its explanation of the Second Amendment, the Heller decision has this as part of the ruling:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited."

That negates a lot of the Cruikshank decision, while at the same time, putting to rest the question of whether or not you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. So, now you have to ask yourself, HOW MUCH government do you want? If the Courts can determine the limits of your Rights, how do you defend yourself if they limit what you can do, believe, read, advocate, or participate in relative to your religion? If the government says you cannot read certain things, are you okay with that? If the government can tell you who you can and cannot associate with, are you comfortable with that?

The current courts operate outside the law and have made the earliest precedents a joke. Maybe that's because the courts are made up of lawyers and lawyers belong to the American Bar Association and that is the most liberal organization in the United States.

Rest assured, you have Rights that go beyond what mortal man can allow. You have the Second Amendment that protects the militia so that if / when a militia is activated, you may come to appreciate the fact that citizens can mobilize to act as a bulwark against tyranny. AND, that militia will be made up of a citizenry that has their own weaponry.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson
letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

 

Of course it doesn't - no right does.
Where does it come from, according to the court, in Cruikshank?
How did Heller reverse this?

 

You know this is not true; you know Heller did not reverse anything in the holdings of either case,

 

I "know' that TOG 6 says a lot of crap over and over

 

Cruikshank (as we have seen repeatedly on this thread) said that the right to bear arms does NOT come from the Constitution.

Heller didn't "reverse" that...it ignored that precedent

 

Then either demonstrate such, or recant your statement. Cite the portion of Heller that holds the right to arms for legal, lawful, and legitimate purposes, does indeed come from the second amendment of the united states constitution, and did not exist prior to it being ratified.

 

That's your claim not mine. I stated the precedent and noted that the precedent was ignored. And it was of course if Heller claims the 2nd gives Constitutional protection for anything other than militia use

 

Heller did NOT ignore the Cruikshank holding. The HOLDING in Heller states:

"Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

The Second Amendment does not grant a Right to keep and bear Arms according to Heller. Yet, both Cruikshank AND Heller (among other court interpretations) find that you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms that is NOT dependent upon joining or belonging to a militia.

Furthermore, Lesh, you continue to rail against my use of STATE interpretations, yet the Court in Heller considered them to reach their decision. Again, from the HOLDING:

"The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

I'm quoting the HOLDING in Heller each time. The HOLDING is the most important part of a United States Supreme Court decision. It isn't opinion nor an explanation of how the Court reached its conclusion. The HOLDING is the bottom line - it is the final word, the law.

Both Cruikshank and Heller have ruled that you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right existed before the Constitution was ratified. State rulings have HELD:

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Deny these facts all you like, Lesh, but look at both the federal rulings AND the state interpretations. Are you clear now as to the meaning of the Second Amendment?

 

it's a right, not a privilege....

 

You are stating a great many things. But none of what is being presented actually amounts to anything. For all that has been presented, it is little more than static.

Then actually cite such. Do not merely claim that such exists, actually prove that it exists.

 

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

Please make your claims clear

 

Lesh made some false claims and I responded in post # 411. Since s/he did not reply, I'm repeating my post by quoting it.

 

We've been through this. YOUR post notes that Cruikshank says that the Constitution does not cover the right to bear arms

 

How can they take your guns if you don't own any?

 

Is there a reason you continue to misrepresent the posts of EVERYBODY on this thread AND the court decisions themselves???????

The Second Amendment covers the Right to keep and bear Arms. Look at the Heller interpretation:

"The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

The Second Amendment did not create the Right to keep and bear Arms. It merely protects it. What in the name of God are you going to disagree about now? Every one of your misrepresentations have been shot down.

 

Only in response to statements you make, even though you know they are not true.

 

Because as precedent, the statement you cherry pick from Cruikshank irrelevant to the Heller ruling , as nothing in the Heller ruling discusses the origin on the right to keep and bear arms..
But, you know this.

 

You wish for a greater degree of clarity on what is being said? Very well then.

Everything that has been posted on the part of yourself, from the very moment you began participating in this discussion, has been factually incorrect. You have demonstrated a complete and total lack of understanding pertaining to the rulings of the united state supreme court that you cite. You have continued repeating debunked and discredited positions, long past the one where it could be excused as a simple lack of understanding what it being discussed. You continue going on and on about subjects you clearly lack even a base understanding of, while refusing to admit that you are out of your league in addressed others who are far more knowledgeable than yourself. For all of your numerous posts in this discussion, you have not actually said anything of even minor significance.

 

A statement know to be false.

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Lesh has ignored my rather lengthy posts refuting his / her talking points - point by point.

Heller mentions Cruikshank and does not overturn it. So, Cruikshank is upheld and the Heller decision adds to the legal issues brought up. The main issue was that you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. So, where does that leave us with United States Supreme Court decisions?

1) The Second Amendment did not create the Right to keep and bear Arms. It merely protects it

2) The Right, under Cruikshank, exists and does not depend upon the Constitution for its existence

3) Under Heller, you have an undisputed individual Right to keep and bear Arms

4) In the Heller holding, the Court refers us back to the wording of STATE constitutions (which are subject to the Supreme Court rulings of that individual state) and we are left with state interpretations as persuasive authority on this never ending debate with Lesh. Shall I repeat their rulings? If not, Lesh is out of ammo at this juncture, unable to respond to what I've posted and merely posting for sport. S/he has had a magnanimous FAIL on this thread.

 

Lesh needs to take trolling lessons form Vegan Giants - at least he finds new and unusual ways to avoid the issues presented to him with an endless stream of red herrings.
Lesh just repeats the same falsehoods over and over.

 

i hope its not faupa here to comment without reading the whole damn thing... im new.

Anyway, 'The Militia' is defined in US Code as 'all able bodied male citizens (or males who intend to become citizens) between the ages of 18 and 45(ish)'. Assuming that we arent going to use this as a means to deny gun rights to women, the disabled or the elderly (as would be instant political suicide) we can expand The Militia (for the purposes of 2A rights) to *all* adults. If you dont like it, change the US Code (good luck... ur gonna need it).