OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf120.htm
AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
By Geoff Metcalf
December 24, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." --Thomas Jefferson
Guess what? The Second Amendment, ("A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.") has, does, and will secure "an individual right to keep and bear arms."
You knew that. I knew that. However, a cabal of leftists remains in denial over what even their own Constitutional scholar had concluded.
Notwithstanding the itching and moaning and gnashing of teeth from the left wing radical fringe, it is an empirical fact that our God given inalienable right to keep and bear arms is FACT.
The U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel has officially concluded the Second Amendment "secures an individual right to keep and bear arms." Duh!
Despite having been dated Aug. 24, the 93-page document was just released. 'Someone' delayed the release for apparent political reasons. This is passing strange considering even liberal democrats acknowledge one of the key components that cost Al Gore his presidential dream was his having embraced the Chuck Schumer/Diane Fienstein/Babs Boxer anti-gun mantra.
The belatedly released research notes, "examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views."
As Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan M. Gottlieb observed, "Henceforth, all Americans will know that the claim by anti-gunners that the Amendment only protects some mythical right of the states to form militias and National Guard units is an outright fraud."
Please note the 'allegedly unbiased' mainstream hasn't said "Jack" about this epiphany.
Even, liberal darling and Harvard Constitutional Law Professor Laurence Tribe acknowledged the obvious in 1999 (and again the mainstream media silence was deafening).
Tribe is arguably the most influential living American constitutional scholar. In 1999 he concluded, "the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification."
Tribe confirmed it includes an individual right, "admittedly of uncertain scope," to "possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes."
The personification of the Metcalf Bromide of "Some people just don't want to be confused with FACTS that contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices." Is, and has been, the ant-gun crowd.
In 2002 when a legal brief was filed by the Justice Department declaring that this protection extends to an individual's right to keep and bear arms irrespective of their involvement in a state militia the gun control crowd threw a hissy fit. Sonic wedgie time: "The worst fears about Attorney General Ashcroft have come true: His extreme ideology on guns has now become government policy." said Mike Barnes, president of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
Despite his extensive liberal bona fides, Tribe (begrudgingly and belatedly) concluded that the Constitution ensured to each American a right to "possess and use firearms in defense of themselves and their homes."
The Second Amendment never has meant 'Jack-spit' about bird hunting or target shooting. Such leftist babble was disingenuous, duplicitous and an outrage to defend the indefensible.
The fact is the Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide American citizens with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive government. It was written by men who had just done that very thing.
The first three battles of the American Revolution were not about taxation, or representation, or even the list of grievances delineated in the Declaration of Independence....the first three battles of the War for Independence were over gun control. [read: Lexington 1775] When Captain Parker faced off the British on the Green in Lexington it was to prevent the British from confiscating "power and ball".
"There should be no doubt," Gottlieb concluded, "that those who have campaigned for restrictive gun laws or outright gun bans have been working to rob Americans of a constitutional right, a civil right. The time has come for America to re-examine every restrictive federal and state firearms statute, every local ordinance and every regulation, and start erasing those that were written solely to infringe on the rights of individual, law-abiding citizens to peaceably own firearms of their choice, without ever again having to explain why." Despite his righteous indignation, I hope Alan isn't holding his breath.
It was again Thomas Jefferson who said, "The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themsleves against tyranny in government."
The entire report is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
2004 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Gunner"
cuts and pastes more gun erotic lies
second adment blah, blah
you are not a miltia, pinhead
CBII
@4ax.com...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Chuckle..denial is not a river in Egypt. I suggest you check with the Department of Justice as to who is the liar.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
It would appear that you are. And a moronic buffoon to boot.
Take your time and when you get to the conclusion part, just above all the foot notes...you will find this:
"Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and to bear arms. Current case law leaves open and unsettled the question of whose right is secured by the Amendment. Although we do not address the scope of the right, our examination of the original meaning of the Amendment provides extensive reasons to conclude that the Second Amendment secures an individual right, and no persuasive basis for either the collective-right or quasi-collective-right views. The text of the Amendment's operative clause, setting out a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms," is clear and is reinforced by the Constitution's structure. The Amendment's prefatory clause, properly understood, is fully consistent with this interpretation. The broader history of the Anglo-American right of individuals to have and use arms, from England's Revolution of 1688-1689 to the ratification of the Second Amendment a hundred years later, leads to the same conclusion. Finally, the first hundred years of interpretations of the Amendment, and especially the commentaries and case law in the pre-Civil War period closest to the Amendment's ratification, confirm what the text and history of the Second Amendment require.
Please let us know if we may provide further assistance.
Steven G. Bradbury Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Howard C. Nielson, Jr. Deputy Assistant Attorney General
C. Kevin Marshall Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General"
Btw..those are United States Deputy Attorney Generals.
Read it and weep, you scum sucking fuckwit.
Bwuaahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gunner

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
try reading the constitution. the power to raise armies is granted congress in article one. also in article one is the power of the states to raise armies if congress consents (this is the national guard). to apply the 2nd admendment to either a state or federal government makes it redundant. also the term "the people" through out the constitution is used to refer to a group of individuals and is applied to the individuals.
if you read other works by our founding fathers it becomes clear the 2nd admendment is intended to serve 3 purposes. that is to give an individual the means to defend his person and property, to give citizens as a group the means necessary to repel invaders and finally to insure the power remains with the people and give them the means necessary to overthrow the government if it should decend into a tyrany.
any court that says otherwise is wrong and evidence our government is decending. if things keep going the 2nd admendment may prove necessary soon.
Cliff wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ok it is in article 1 section 10 not 8 "Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. "
that keep troops part, that is the states right to have a military force with the consent of congress.

people is plural, it refers to a group of individuals. as a group people have powers and authorities not right, individuals have rights. and at the time the admendment was written "well-regulated" refered to having the tools and equipment necessary to do the assigned task not bound by numerous laws and regulations. beside how can a group "keep and bear" unless by the individuals. naything else is by the government and covered in article. and there is no mention of organized in admendment 2.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

just because through fear of what someone might do with a machie gun, they uphold unconstitutional laws does not make them right. to accept that premise means accepting the idea that suspected terrorists can be helded without due process, may be required to sign confessions, and other such infringments and deemed necessary to the illusion of security.
if you'll read jefferson, paine, franklin and others with an 1880's dictionary to understand the meanings of the words and phrases of the day you will see the constitution in a whole new light. our founding fathers were not afraid of what their neighbors might do, but were willing to let them think and act on what was right for themselves with as little government interfence as possible.
besides as patrick henry said when asked who comprised the militia "we the people are the militia"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you, sir, epitomize jefferson's reasoning when he said "the people have neither the intelligence nor inclination to govern themselves".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
begin cueboy2 pulled his head out of his ass temporarily and wrote:
Nothing of importance, or, the norm for him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

could you take your head out of Gummer's ass long enough to explain how you would have any clue about what is "normal" for me?
CBII

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

For the record, my amateur opinion is that Tribe has it about right, and I don't disagree with the thrust of what's being said here.
But the writer appears fairly ignorant of Constitutional law and could mislead other people by his ignorance, so let's take a look at some key errors in what Metcalf has said:

It would take a Supreme Court reversal of the current state of case law to do that. So far, of 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals, exactly one has found for an individual right. There's quite a hill to climb, if not to reverse the situation with federal law, then to incorporate an individual right under the 14th and make it a general right.

Not under law.

The DOJ is the prosecutorial department of the Executive branch of government. The legislative branch writes laws, and the judicial branch decides their constitutionality. A brief or opinion by the DOJ has no legal standing but it does carry some interesting legal weight. If it suggests what they're going to prosecute, then we could be in for some interesting lawsuits against DOJ.
However, it probably won't happen. DOJ is bound to prosecute cases under the law.

John Ashcroft is the one who decides when DOJ briefs, opinions, or public announcements are released. If there was a "someone," it was him and him alone.

No, it's the law of the land in the territories of 11 of the 12 Circuit Courts of Appeals.

That's probably because it's not an "epiphany." It's an elaboration of a position that DOJ announced several years ago. It isn't news and it has no legal consequence.

Not bad for a "liberal darling," eh? <g>

That's probably right on the mark. The right for individuals to be armed with their own weapons for the common defense seems unassailable under the historical record. I don't think the USSC would have much trouble establishing an individual right that should not be infringed by the federal government.
The "uncertain scope" refers to the individual right as one that the states can't infringe. Legally and historically, that's a tougher go -- not impossible, but it would require reversing a lot of precedent. It's also a little flakier in the historical record, since it wasn't mentioned at all in the debates on the 2nd in the First Congress. The record in support of other reasons for an individual RKBA amounts to a collection of editorials that have little to do with the laws as they were enacted, under the Amendment as it was written.

This is mostly a myth. The 2nd Amendment talks about "the security of a free state," and there is much more commentary from the time about the need for a militia to secure the common defense, and to defend against rebellion, than anything else -- including both self-defense and overthrowing the government. Jefferson's comments about defending against a tyrannical government made good slogans, but that was not the basis of the debates, nor did it relate at all to the legal writings of the times. The Militia Act of 1792 defined the purpose of the militia: to defend against foreign states, Indians, and domestic insurrections. It also specified that each male citizen was to have on hand 20 balls of appropriate caliber and two spare flints. <g>
This is one of the primary gun-nutz' fantasies. The dominant idea behind a militia was to defend the government, not to overthrow it. A week's worth of checking the historical record makes this abundantly clear.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:36:18 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

Did you read the brief? Most interesting.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

a
of
Yeah, I read it. I did not, however, check out the 437 citations for veracity or substance. <g>
It's similar to the 5th Circuit Court's decision in "Emerson," only written more as a point of view than as a balanced decision (not that the 5th Circuit Court wrote a particularly balanced decision, either, but it had the appearance of one).
There are a couple of interesting points that readers may be interested in. Within the introduction, the DOJ authors say this about the current status of the law:
"In sum, the question of who possesses the right secured by the Second Amendment remains open and unsettled in the courts and among scholars."
The argument itself is an extraordinary piece of work -- imagine how many of our tax dollars it took to research and write it. If someone were going to critique it in full it would cost, in this writer's opinion, at least $200,000. So I wouldn't attempt it. Certainly not for a NG discussion, and not when I have important work ahead of me in analyzing the stats of the Yankees' new pitching acquisitions. d8-)
However, to the point I made above and which you seem to question, the argument does contain more than a few slight-of-hand tricks, in lawyerly fashion, for example in trying to reach for an anti-government basis for the militia. I thought it was a bit odd that they quoted the words of state constitutions that addressed the issue, right in the middle of saying it wasn't for the purpose of defending the state:
(Pa) -- That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned.
(NC) -- That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State...
(Vt) -- "the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State"...
(Ma) -- The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence.
The DOJ polemic answers this (speaking specifically of NC) by saying, "It would not have made sense, in the context of a state constitution, for a "right" of "the people" to protect only the prerogatives of the State."
One gets the feeling that they're instructing the Founders and the various state legislators on what they actually meant, or ought to have meant. Perhaps the DOJ has a better feel for that then the people who wrote the various constitutions.
And one can be reasonably sure they wouldn't have made this argument if they were trying to defend a right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of the common defence, as Massachusetts put it. What the DOJ is doing here is building a case for an individual right that will slip under the fence of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, thus extending the right to individuals over the heads of the states. Thus, their selection of authorities.
If I had $200,000 or so to work on it and enough time to do it, analyzing this thing would be fun. <g> But the issue we were talking about is addressed fairly well by the actual words contained in the 2nd Amendment and in the various state constitutional provisions listed above. There were sentiments and philosophical positions; and there were laws and constitutions as they were written. And the two were not always the same thing.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 14:56:44 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

Of course. SOCTUS has not ruled recently on it, but as the brief indicated, it has ruled on it some 20 odd times in the past, all of which supported the individual rights interp.
As for scholars...snicker...no two will ever agree on this, least of all when so many of them are anti-gun.
Note Lawrance Tribe took a shitload of heat from his peers when he, the anti-gun liberal, took an honest look at the data and came to the conclusion, much to his self admitted disgust, that it is indeed a individual right. While I dont care for his politics, the fact he could look beyond his personal world view and come up with an honest rebuttle of his own bleeves is impressive.
Gunner
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, nonaddictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or the secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious or secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.
May you have a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling, and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2005, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make the world great, and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith, political belief, choice of computer platform, or sexual preference of the wishee.
By accepting this greeting you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal. It is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for herself or himself or others, is void where prohibited by law, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. This wish is under warranty to perform as expected within the usual application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and the warranty is limited to replacement of this wish or issuance of a new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Firstly, you appear to have forgotten what you were challenging me about. It wasn't the individual right business. Regarding federal law, it's my amateur opinion that it *does* prevent the federal government from interfering with the individual right. And, like Tribe, I also believe that, with some qualifications, and given an activist interpretation that has to reach back through the tea leaves and the 14th Amendment to get there, that it also probably confers a right over the heads of the states. This is not a simple issue, however, and I've said little about it. I may have to re-read Tribe on the subject. The status of the law today is that the states have full authority to regulate gun ownership. As FindLaw will tell you, it is recognized as "good law" as of this date.
What you challenged me about was my statement that it's "mostly a myth" that, as the author of the piece you originally quoted said, "The fact is the Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide American citizens with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive government." I said it's "mostly a myth," because both the 2nd Amendment itself and the various state constitutional provisions regarding gun ownership say nothing about it. They say it is for protecting the security of the state. The business about rising up and overthrowing the government isn't mentioned in the constitutions. In fact, to the extent it's talked about, it's in terms of protecting against "insurrections."

You've probably never read the briefs opposing the 5th Circuit's rulings, or those recommending that certiorari be denied over a 9th Circuit ruling of about the same time. You ought to look them up. They're also very convincing scholarship.

Tribe didn't get the respect he has for nothing. I seriously doubt if your friends who tell you he reached this decision with "self-admitted disgust" know much about Tribe's other writings. He's a brilliant and penetrating analyst, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court needs. And that's because no Court can escape "activism" today, for reasons that may be apparent to you since we've had a couple of years of these discussions. An originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment leads to the conclusion that the most respected originalist Constitutional scholar (Robert Bork) has reached: that it's all about the militia, and that there is no individual right.
He reached that decision because a real originalist has two characteristics. First, he relies strongly on the words of the document and the next tier of authority, which is the debates over the Bill of Rights that occurred in the First Congress. As you know, that debate about the 2nd was all about the militia.
The second characteristic of a real originalist is that he limits his interpretation of the 14th to what its writers actually intended: that the states would not be allowed to circumvent suffrage and equal treatment under the law of then-newly-freed slaves. That's all it was about. Using the 14th as a reason to extend authority over the states -- as, by example, enforcing the 1st or 2nd Amendment as an individual right that the states can't abridge -- requires a certain amount of activist interpretation. Actually, quite a lot of it.
Finally, I don't recall that the DOJ brief said that the USSC "has ruled on it some 20 odd times in the past, all of which supported the individual rights interp." If it did, the brief is wrong.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 22:11:36 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

As you will notice in the first sections of the brief...making sure the people can revolt against a tyrannical government was discussed many times, and plenty of examples were given to that effect.
As to infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights, additional examples were given where the courts ruled in many individual cases, such could NOT be constitutional.
I further presented cites from Article 4 and 6 indicating that no state could change or disregard ANY portion of the constitution. Being found "good law" only shows how far the rot has spread.
Gunner
"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio < snipped-for-privacy@actd.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

citizens
I
nothing
in
terms
Not a single one from actual law or from a single constitution, state or federal. All of it was from political tracts -- editorials. The constitutions they quoted contradicted your point flatly. They said it was for security of the *states*, and for protection from rebellions and usurpations.
Without starting another thread, that's one of the two fatal flaws of the 5th Circuit's "Emerson" decision, and of this DOJ brief. They mix-and-match actual laws and the various political arguments that preceded them. Which one is the Bush argument, and which one is the Kerry argument? One way to decide is on the basis of which one made it into an actual US law or constitutional provision. That's the way that holds the most authority under our jurisprudence -- and it's the way any "originalist" will insist that such decisions are made.

I don't know what this is in reference to. Are you making a new statement, or responding to one of mine?

Give it a break, Gunner. Are you trying to tell us that the Supreme Court had the issue of state's rights all wrong for over 100 years, and that the doctrines of incorporation under the 14th Amendment were unnecessary, because the federal government already had the power to enforce all of the Bill of Rights over the heads of the states anyway, because of Article 6?
Where did you get this great insight? Why do you suppose the USSC missed this obvious point, while you, Gunner, has it all figured out? <g>
Read again the quotes I posted from the debates in Congress a few days ago, on the 1st Amendment, and look at the citations in Barron v. Baltimore (1833). That's one of the "pre-Civil-War" decisions that the DOJ apparently things so highly of.
The bottom line is that the Bill of Rights was demanded by the states, as a guarantee that their authority and the rights of their citizens would not be usurped by the new federal government. Thus, there is nothing in the BofR that's worded like the 13th and 14th Amendments, in which those rights were first applied over the heads of the states -- explicitly.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

back
First, all rights have restrictions. That's what the "compelling state interest" line in many court decisions is all about. It's the one that keeps us from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and claiming a 1st Amendment right.
The 2nd has had exactly one positive Circuit Appeals Court ruling in recent years, and a "compelling state interest" was involved in that case. It was a guy who was under a restraining order for threatening his wife. So that case, too, addressed limitations on the right, as the 5th Circuit Court had to remand the case or something like that.
I don't recall what Tribe was talking about regarding the states' right issue, but it's still a tough one. It still has to be detached from the militia issue. That's why the DOJ went to such lengths to argue that it wasn't about the militia. That's where the weight of precedent is going to demand a very activist Supreme Court decision, if the 2nd is to be incorporated under the 14th.

The only decision about that that I can think of is some obiter dicta from the Miller case. If the high Court decides in favor of an individual right, they'll probably have to address the question at the same time. That makes it even more difficult to get a case before the Court.
The case is going to be tied up in principles of jurisprudence that have Latin names. <g> See "stare decisis."

They have a mental rash that comes from excessive bathroom reading of _American Rifleman_ and gun blogs. If they manage to get a Supreme Court case heard, a lot of that will clear up.
Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 10:06:10 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart. Come back and start this thread up again when you have that ruling from Rhenquist &tc.
In the meantime you're just tripping over your own feet.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Evidently you missed the post where I cited the 6 Renquist decisions that showed the 2nd was an individual right? Need me to repost it?
Gunner
"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio < snipped-for-privacy@actd.net
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.