Best Heller brief yet

[rainbowbob]

Right on, Seminole!

 

[gc70]

I hold that the rights we enjoy(or are supposed to enjoy) were protected in the "Bill of Rights" and those protections were cast as a wide blanket across all government when they were written. I refer you to Madison's speech that I linked to earlier. They protect rights of individuals, after all.

For all intents and purposes, all the Fourteenth Amendment did in regard to our rights and freedoms is to extend the rights and freedoms in the First Amendment to the several states and grant power to Congress to enforce the protections of all our rights and freedoms on the several states.

If the Bill of Rights originally applied to the states, then the 14th Amendment certainly could not "extend" the Bill of Rights to the states.

 

[frankie_the_yankee]

The Constitution already does make the government helpless to regulate NFA weapons, destructive devices, etc. Any lack of Court action upholding that is at the least bad behavior.

Your opinion. But The Court does not agree. And it is their opinion, a majority of them that is, that results in "rulings" that have the force of the law of the land.

Again, you may not agree. But it doesn't matter. When discussing legal matters, one needs to do so within the structure of the law and the government institutions set up to administer and interpret it.

That is, if one wishes to be taken seriously.

I don't see any of the Respondent's briefs taking your view of what the Constitution means as to NFA weapons, destructive devices, nuclear bombs sold out of vending machines set up outside of UN HQ in NYC or MP-5's on airliners.

Do you?

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

My understanding of liberal and liberalism vis-a-vis the Constitution is from the liberties taken with the Constitution; meaning liberal "interpretations" of what is written in the Constitution through interpolation, ignoring certain parts of it, giving little or no weight to certain amendments or sections, adding to or altering the meanings of words as used in it, and taking parts of it out of context.

Conservative and conservatism for me has always meant adhering to the Constitution by staying in originalist/strict constructionist conformance to it.

Applying the Constitution liberally is opposite to taking liberties with it. It can be damned confusing and I'm sure it has been muddied by design. How else could our misrepresentatives misrepresent themselves to get elected?

But you are right, Seminole. "Classic Liberal" it is!

Woody
_________________________________________________________________
As the Court said in Boyd v. United States:

"It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of person and property should be liberally construed. A close and literal construction deprives them of half their efficacy, and leads to gradual depreciation of the right, as if it consisted more in sound than in substance. It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If the Bill of Rights originally applied to the states, then the 14th Amendment certainly could not "extend" the Bill of Rights to the states.

The Fourteenth Amendment certainly could extend the First Amendment to the states because originally the First Amendment limited only Congress, and that is the only amendment I said was extended to the states. I said the Fourteenth Amendment granted power to Congress to enforce all the others in the several states(See Section 5 of the amendment).

I don't see any of the Respondent's briefs taking your view of what the Constitution means as to NFA weapons, destructive devices, nuclear bombs sold out of vending machines set up outside of UN HQ in NYC or MP-5's on airliners.

That hasn't been challenged before the court yet. Sheesh, man, one step at a time, OK? I do like your idea of setting up bomb vending machines outside the UN building, though. I wonder if we did if they would take the hint...

...a majority of them that is,..

I'm glad you put that in there. That means you recognize that some on the Court agree with me. I needn't wish to be taken seriously. I already am.

Oh, and nuclear bombs sold out of vending machines set up outside of UN HQ in NYC or MP-5's on airliners is your idea, not mine. Keep it up, though. You'll get the thread locked for sure. In the mean time, I'm going to try and keep the thread on track. There have been some good exchanges.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "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." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed 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 (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. This was before the Fourteenth Amendment, too.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Constitution Cowboy: you are right, I was unclear about that. But the Bill of Rights only limited federal action, it took the 14th Amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights to apply to the state as well, and as we can see, one of those fundamental rights, the right to bear arms, is still not incorporated, so the system is far from perfect. Look at the First Amendment's ban on Congress from establsihing a church. Many states, such as Connecticutt, had official relgions after the Constitution was ratified.

You're on a fool's errand if you equate the freedom of religion with the RKBA. The religion amendment clearly states that "The Congress shall enact no law establishing a state religion ..." The 2nd Amendment does NOT say anything about "the Congress" -- it says that "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, I am aware that there are legal scholars with more initials after their names than I could collect in a lifetime who agree with you. So what? It's still only their opinion. The Founders were the most intelligent and learned men of the day. Many were lawyers. They knew how to write. Reading through the entire body of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it should be obvious that where they intended to limit the Congress they were perfectly able to say so. Ergo, where they did NOT say "the Congress," it is more than reasonable to propose that they did NOT intend to limit only the Congress.

 

[Smurfslayer]

Originally Posted by frankie the yankee
I don't see any of the Respondent's briefs taking your view of what the Constitution means as to NFA weapons, destructive devices....

Then you're not reading the correct brief!

I reiterate here that High Road member Well Regulated also filed a brief which can be viewed online ... In case you haven't checked it out, you ought to.

http://www.virginia1774.org/07-290bsacvVirginia1774.OrgReprint.pdf

The relevant section begins on page 29

..."George Washington’s letter as Commander of the American Forces now
provides this Court with the “evidence” it was lacking that a sawed-off shotgun is a weapon of the military or the militia. See United States v. Miller..."