OC more than a pistol!

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Kildar

snip

No I have no doubt you feel we should be. We just disagree on the intention of parts of the constitution. Let me put it this way, do you think if any of the 13 states didn't agree with the bill of rights applied to them that they would be allowed into the union? With the pro gun quote I was showing what I believe was intended. There was another that talked about U.S. citizens on the frontier farms within the states were not armed as they should be.

"We the people........" yes the constitution was set up for how the federal government should be ran, but the bill of rights is universal by that statement of " We the people...." so for your state to be part of this federal union you had to agree to these bill of rights.

The supreme court has made many erroneous decisions that are unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. The tax acts which made drugs is one that comes to mind. Same with some land grabbing states have been doing in the name of eminent domain.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

By wording of the law there is no difference between the two below.

 

[erps]

imported post

"We the people........" yes the constitution was set up for how the federal government should be ran, but the bill of rights is universal by that statement of " We the people...." so for your state to be part of this federal union you had to agree to these bill of rights.

That phrase "we, the people" refers to the group forming the government,

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

if it was understood that the bill of rights applied to the states as well, why is there a 14th amendment?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's my understanding that it is the amendment that extended the protections of the bill of rights to the states through a history of case law as already pointed out by Kildars.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

By wording of the law there is no difference between the two below.

Nice verizon lgvx8300 there

 

[Kildars]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Kildar

snip

No I have no doubt you feel we should be. We just disagree on the intention of parts of the constitution. Let me put it this way, do you think if any of the 13 states didn't agree with the bill of rights applied to them that they would be allowed into the union? With the pro gun quote I was showing what I believe was intended. There was another that talked about U.S. citizens on the frontier farms within the states were not armed as they should be.

"We the people........" yes the constitution was set up for how the federal government should be ran, but the bill of rights is universal by that statement of " We the people...." so for your state to be part of this federal union you had to agree to these bill of rights.

The supreme court has made many erroneous decisions that are unconstitutional as far as I am concerned. The tax acts which made drugs is one that comes to mind. Same with some land grabbing states have been doing in the name of eminent domain.

I understand the way you feel. However the "We the people..." just means the citizens of America wanted to create a federal government to do basic tasks that each state shouldn't be left to (interstate commerce, national defense, treaties, mint money etc.). It doesn't mean that the federal constitution applies to the states.

The founders have expressly stated when they wanted to place restrictions on state government via the constitution. An example of this is Article One, Section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It specifically names when they want it to apply to the states.

I think Barron v Baltimore put it best:

The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself; and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and, we think, necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself; not of distinct governments, framed by different persons and for different purposes.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

So you guys are disagreeing that The bill of rights are inherit rights, unalienable ones? Okay...

I am no Citizen and can't argue or remember all the case law and cites he has but I recommend reading his points on this subject, Southern Boy has some good posts on it also. And I am just going to simply say we have to agree to disagree, like I said the supreme court ruled the marijuana tax stamp which the government never issued was legal too, and I disagree with that also. I will be glad when it is ruled to apply to the state, which basically incorporation does. And we can then move forward dismantling unconstitutional state laws through the legal system.

 

[amzbrady]

imported post

David.Car wrote:

By wording of the law there is no difference between the two below.

Is to a difference, one has a bigger belly.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

So you guys are disagreeing that The bill of rights are inherit rights, unalienable ones? Okay...

I am no Citizen and can't argue or remember all the case law and cites he has but I recommend reading his points on this subject, Southern Boy has some good posts on it also. And I am just going to simply say we have to agree to disagree, like I said the supreme court ruled the marijuana tax stamp which the government never issued was legal too, and I disagree with that also. I will be glad when it is ruled to apply to the state, which basically incorporation does. And we can then move forward dismantling unconstitutional state laws through the legal system.

I'm not disagreeing they're inherit and unalienable. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it just protects them. The federal constitution was written to protect them against federal government encroachment.

 

[David.Car]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Kildars wrote:

David.Car wrote:
Nice verizon lgvx8300 there

Yeah, but a phone like that should not be on Wrangler jeans - come on, get the real thing - Levis!

Not me. Internet stock photo.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Kildars wrote:

I'm not disagreeing they're inherit and unalienable. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it just protects them. The federal constitution was written to protect them against federal government encroachment.

What if a state governmentwanted to keep all blacks out of the state? What if a state governmentwanted to keep all Christians out of a state?

That would violate the 14th amendment, which actually explained it is a restriction on the states unlike the other amendments:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If every amendment was supposed to apply to the states why wouldn't they put "No state" or why would they put "no state" in this one if the entire document was obviously supposed to apply to the states?

 

[Kildars]

imported post

NavyLT wrote:

Kildars wrote:

NavyLT wrote:

Kildars wrote:

I'm not disagreeing they're inherit and unalienable. The constitution doesn't give you rights, it just protects them. The federal constitution was written to protect them against federal government encroachment.

What if a state governmentwanted to keep all blacks out of the state? What if a state governmentwanted to keep all Christians out of a state?

That would violate the 14th amendment, which actually explained it is a restriction on the states unlike the other amendments:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If every amendment was supposed to apply to the states why wouldn't they put "No state" or why would they put "no state" in this one if the entire document was obviously supposed to apply to the states?

SO, why is it not "abridging the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" when a state infringes upon the rights or "privilege" of a citizen to keep and bear arms?

Because the 2nd amendment says this:

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.

It does not say this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, no state shall abridge the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.

Also, the 14th amendment was WRITTEN to stop slavery and racism.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post


TENCHE COXE, REVOLUTIONARY ERA WRITER wrote:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

 

[seattleric007]

imported post

I was talking to a seattle police dept. desk sargent downtown, and he said it was legal, but small chance an officer would check you to see that it was unloaded.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

TENCHE COXE, REVOLUTIONARY ERA WRITER wrote:

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

Care to explain how this really applies to our discussion? Quotes of founders hold no legal precedent. Also, he's saying that the power lies with the people -- not with government. It doesn't say that the 2nd amendment applies to the states.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Just that it is to be in the hands of the people neither federal or state. To me it shows the state of mind of the drafters and those in that era, the only way to show how they felt is to quote them.

The original draft actually mentions "We the people of the states of...." I know we won't ever agree on this. But when I read the constitution and quotes from those who wrote it. It had to do with a universal right that no one can infringe upon. I just read it again since our discussion and I still get that distinct impression.

I just hope that the supreme court will "incorporate" , or interpret that yes it does apply to the states. And it will no longer be an issue and we can mover forward in protecting our "inherit" rights. And then these arguments thank be to the gods a mute point.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

I just want to clarify that I don't care either way whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states because the WA State constitution protects our RTKBA. The 2nd amendment allowed a federal assault weapons ban.

Do I want that "shall not be infringed" standard applied to my state?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

Kildars wrote:

I just want to clarify that I don't care either way whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states because the WA State constitution protects our RTKBA. The 2nd amendment allowed a federal assault weapons ban.

Do I want that "shall not be infringed" standard applied to my state?

We are definitely on the same page there. You can tell when OC world has been slow these threads end up in long debates. Which I am often guilty of helping along you think I would have been on the debate club in school.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Just that it is to be in the hands of the people neither federal or state. To me it shows the state of mind of the drafters and those in that era, the only way to show how they felt is to quote them.

The original draft actually mentions "We the people of the states of...." I know we won't ever agree on this. But when I read the constitution and quotes from those who wrote it. It had to do with a universal right that no one can infringe upon. I just read it again since our discussion and I still get that distinct impression.

I just hope that the supreme court will "incorporate" , or interpret that yes it does apply to the states. And it will no longer be an issue and we can mover forward in protecting our "inherit" rights. And then these arguments thank be to the gods a mute point.

The pre-amble introduction of, "We the people.." even if it says "We the people of these states united.." just states who they are, who is bringing the constitution. It does not mean that the constitution was written to apply to each state. Again, I will point to where I differentiated different sections of the constitutions that applied to states and that applied to the federal government with the word "state" in the section.

I agree we will agree to disagree but it is annoyance of mine that people cite the 2nd amendment as the document protecting their rights when Section 24 of our constitution is arguably more protective (I will discuss this if you want too) than our federal constitution (i.e. I don't think an assault weapons ban would pass in our supreme court) and our court has stuck down many gun laws that other courts (including the supreme court of the United States) may or have held up. Until the court incorporates it, you should be citing Section 24 and again, even if it is incorporated, I would still turn to our state constitution because it affords more protection.

 

[Kildars]

imported post

sudden valley gunner wrote:

Kildars wrote:

I just want to clarify that I don't care either way whether the 2nd amendment applies to the states because the WA State constitution protects our RTKBA. The 2nd amendment allowed a federal assault weapons ban.

Do I want that "shall not be infringed" standard applied to my state?

We are definitely on the same page there. You can tell when OC world has been slow these threads end up in long debates. Which I am often guilty of helping along you think I would have been on the debate club in school.

I enjoy these discussions when they can be rational and civil (which we have been). However, if I were in your shoes, I probably would have looked to the ninth circuit for case law supporting your side. The ninth circuit has held the 2nd amendment applies to the stated instead of citing "We the people.." as a basis for your position.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

imported post

I enjoy the discussions and debate too. Often I will play Devil's advocate just to help flush out and expand my thinking, which your arguments have definitely helped me to do. Some folks on here wanna just "win" the argument at all costs and when you don't see it there way stoop to name calling and asshatery, which sucks.

The ninth circuit decision is a good one, although en banc now. :X But I will definitely keep that in mind for future debates.