Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    El Paso, TX
    Posts
    1,877

    Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

    Headline: "Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school"
    Published December 24, 2012
    FoxNews.com
    -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2G5e7xb00


    ...did not see this posted yet (which I thought strange, with all the Libertarians here and specifically Ron Paul supporters) so I thought I'd get THEIR comments re: this story.

    So...is Ron right?


    P.S. Mods: Move this to the proper area if this is not it...wasn't sure where this topic should go.
    Last edited by cloudcroft; 12-25-2012 at 01:47 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Granite State of Mind
    Posts
    4,510
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post

    So...is Ron right?
    Yes.

    I was saying so before I ever heard his comments.

    The answer is not "more police", it's more ordinary citizens who are no longer banned from carrying. The answer is definitely not a national mental health database, which is the far scarier and more dangerous part of the NRA's proposal.

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

    I started a thread that said the call for armed guards was lame. It is like they were trying to avoid advocating the correct and obvious solution: Stop fettering the right of LAC to carry in schools. Yes, precautions need to be taken to ensure that the children, whom we can safely assume are almost all ignorant of the safe and proper use of firearms, do not gain access to them and that any teachers, as agents of the State, are properly trained before they are allowed to carry, but carry should generally be permitted, even encouraged, in schools.

    It is only the relative defenselessness of schools that attracts these evil crazies to shoot them up.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  4. #4
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Yes, Mr. Paul is correct. I mentioned it somewhere, but where is enumerated power in the Constitution for the fed.gov to steal more of our property each payday to implement a program that only grows the fed.gov...

  5. #5
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I didn't see Ron "rip" the NRA. Seemed pretty civil to me.

    Of course he's right.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    I've not read the report.

    But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs. PERIOD.

    My guess is that Ron Paul agrees.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I read what he said and he's right. The answer isn't more government.

    I'll just say in my best Forest Gump voice......"NRA is as NRA does....."
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member Keylock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    OKC
    Posts
    197
    Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

    The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

    To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

    Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

    On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

    In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

    James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

    The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

    Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

    The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.

  9. #9
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

    The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

    To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

    Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

    On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

    In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

    James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

    The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

    Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

    The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.
    So true! Congress is limited to only doing those things that Art 1 Section 8 permits, yet I find many people do not understand the 18th Clause of Section 8.

    Let's look at it. You can follow along at: http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
    Far too many people focus on the necessary and proper portion of that statement and ignore the simple fact Congress must justify Necessary & Proper for the foregoing powers. If the laws they are creating are not contained within the foregoing powers, or are not listed elsewhere in the constitution, then those laws are Anti-Constitutional. (Anti-Constitutional is my term for anything unconstitutional that has not made it before the SCOTUS for declaration, or through nullification by the several sovereign states, as such.)

    I see where in Clause 10 that Congress has the ability to define and punish felony acts committed on the high seas, and acts committed against other countries. Can someone show me where they have the authority to create, define, and punish Felony charges within the United States that are not committed on the high seas or against the laws of other countries.

    To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
    It seems that those in our Government have overreached their authority and failed to abide by the 10A yet again.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am10.html

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; 12-28-2012 at 11:45 AM. Reason: removed unnecessary words
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  10. #10
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    I've not read the report.

    But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs. PERIOD.

    My guess is that Ron Paul agrees.





    Or Tranquility...I swear I reade some document that referred to Domestic Tranquility, somewhere.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Or Tranquility...I swear I reade some document that referred to Domestic Tranquility, somewhere.
    Here???



    http://www.amazon.com/Domestic-Tranq.../dp/0965320863



  12. #12
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff. State View Post



    Nice!
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    153
    Quote Originally Posted by cloudcroft View Post
    Headline: "Ron Paul rips NRA plan for officers in every school"
    Published December 24, 2012
    FoxNews.com
    -- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012...#ixzz2G5e7xb00

    So...is Ron right?
    Yes. /thread

  14. #14
    Regular Member Jack House's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    I80, USA
    Posts
    2,661
    Man, if my school had armed police officers, I'd probably be a criminal right now.

    I had a lot of problems with the last school I went to before being homeschooled. I was even assaulted by the damned principal!

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    I have no problem with schools having armed guards. Each community must assess the security needs of each school based on its unique set of circumstances. However, unlike the NRA, I don't see armed guards as the solution. The solution is simple: allow lawful carry by faculty and staff--and possibly some parents. Require specialized training to ensure that the carriers know how to deploy the firearms in ways that do not endanger the scads of children around and that they know how to keep little bugger-hooks from even touching the things, cuz they surely ain't trained!

  16. #16
    Regular Member rodbender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Navasota, Texas, USA
    Posts
    2,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Keylock View Post
    Unfortunately the vast majority of Americans are willing to allow the government to grow simply because they hold the belief that whatever SCOTUS says... is final.

    The NRA's idea is for the fed.gov to act beyond it's enumerated power as found in that inconvenient rule book entitled, "The Constitution of the United States".

    To most Americans, SCOTUS is the final arbiter of all things (even above the Creator). Most Americans are ignorant of Article VI, second paragraph that reads, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

    The key words above are: "made in Pursuance thereof"... meaning that all laws made by Congress can only be made in accordance and support of those powers enumerated in Article 1, Section 8. Any law made beyond an enumerated power and made in pursuance thereof... are null and void.

    Since most Americans are educated in government operated public schools, they have little or no idea of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions which addressed the unlawfulness of the Alien & Sedition Act. And though most of the other states did support the Alien and Sedition Act and discounted nullification, ironically less than ten years later they used nullification to push back against the Embargo Act of 1807, claiming it to be null and void. Wisconsin nullified the Fugitive Slave Act later, claiming it to be unconstitutional. The RealID Act has effectively been nullified. Many states are nullifying the NDAA, Obamacare and a host of other unconstitutional laws.

    On nullification, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "A nullification is the rightful remedy whenever the government violates the Constitution."

    In Federalist #78 states: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the constitution, can be valid..."

    James Madison says in the Virginia Resolution: "The states, then, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must themselves decide, in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

    The violation occurs when the .gov oversteps it's enumerated powers. Gun control is a complete violation of those enumerated powers. Neither the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper clause (and all of it's 'elasticity') give such broad powers to the fed.gov and only pertain to laws passed in accordance with enumerated powers. Naturally defendants of the CC & NP are unwilling to discuss the Ratifying Debates of the several states to ascertain the actual meaning and intent of both and instead rely on the ignorance of the people to stretch things to it's benefit and growth.

    Much of all the problems in the US boils down to an ignorant populace and people with good intentions who have zero concept of natural rights. Sadly, 99% of gun owners are ignorant of natural law, the rights granted by virtue of our humanity and are incapable of philosophical thought. Most gun owners also have no understanding of what the legitimate purpose of government (in and of itself an unnecessary concept) might be. If it has a purpose, that purpose is to defend the right to life, liberty and property.

    The NRA and those who support it may have good intentions. But their answer simply defies the enumerated power of Article 1, Section 8. Essentially, because the NRA is ignorant of how their solution violates the Constitution, they are as much an enemy of the Constitution as the anti-gun crowd. They can correct their anti-constitutional stance by advocating that the states address the issue and tell the fed.gov to pound sand.
    It is very refreshing to find that someone on this site gets it. Every statement in the above post is right on.

    Ron Paul is evidently ahead of his time........or is he behind his time (1787)?
    The thing about common sense is....it ain't too common.
    Will Rogers

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

    When someone raises the question in a court as to the constitutionality of a law, it is appropriate for the court to answer that question. Of all the federal courts, the one that has the final say among those federal courts is the SCOTUS. It is reasonable that the other two branches of government should bind themselves individually to findings of constitutionality by the SCOTUS. However, if those two branches disagree together with the Court (which they almost never do), they can effectively ignore the Court with the sole consequence that prosecution for violating a law declared unconstitutional would be grossly impractical (which is good). They also have the option to rewrite laws, which seems to be the preferable way of dealing with such a unified disagreement with the SCOTUS.

    States also have the ability to ignore the SCOTUS if there is unity within the branches of State government and sufficient resolve to marshall the State's resources to implement its holding on the constitutionality of a law.

    Is the Supreme Court acting within the natural scope of courts in ruling laws unconstitutional? Yes. Courts exist to resolve disputes arising out of the law, and constitutionality can be disputed.

    Is the Supreme Court the only way to challenge the constitutionality of a law? No. States should be able to use their authority to enforce that which they believe is constitutional and not to enforce that which they believe is not constitutional. Of course, again, this will require resolve and unity within that State government.

    Is the Supreme Court the most practical way to resolve the constitutionality question? Of course it is.

    Is the Supreme Court the FINAL word on constitutionality? No. Again, though, it requires resolve to go against it. That resolve almost universally does not exist.

    So don't let folks fool you into thinking that the SCOTUS is acting outside its scope when deciding constitutionality. Neither let anyone say that they are the only ones who can make such a decision or act on it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  18. #18
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    SNIP But the answer is not the federal government, unless the problem involves interstate or foreign affairs.
    Oh, Congress would never regulate interstate or foreign affairs. If they did, they'd have to stay with their wives in their home state.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  19. #19
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    snipped ~~
    So don't let folks fool you into thinking that the SCOTUS is acting outside its scope when deciding constitutionality. Neither let anyone say that they are the only ones who can make such a decision or act on it.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    There are also times that the decision handed down, did not contain full knowledge by the SCOTUS and could open their findings for a future review and possibly the SCOTUS overturning their own prior finding.

    I cannot quote an example case off the top of my head from the SCOTUS, but have seen a similiar re-review of their own decision and ultimate overturning of their own decision, in the Washington State SC.

    One case that I can think of that our SCOTUS was not given complete knowledge forehand and ruled in a manner that could be overturned is United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

    They were not informed that when it came to shot-guns with barrels less than 18", that our Armed Forces had in fact used such in WWI, and their finding even states that they had no knowledge.
    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
    http://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede.../174/case.html
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Ron Paul vs. the NRA?

    Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

    The SCOTUS can be (and has been) wrong. It can correct itself, however, despite being horribly, horribly wrong sometimes, it doesn't always.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>

  21. #21
    Regular Member LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Dolan Springs, AZ
    Posts
    576
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95
    Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.
    As my contention is that the 2A protects the Peoples right to be equally armed as the militia. I may be misunderstanding your purpose of stating what you are.
    So, let us look and see if either Heller or McDonald resulted in the overturning of the United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 concept that all male citizens are the Militia or that the people should not be armed with those weapons that are common to the militia.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al.v. HELLER

    1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
    ~~ snipped ~~
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
    So in the Heller case, the Court did not overturn the United States v. Miller decision, they simply relied upon its limitation of what might be classified as not common to the Militia, yet upheld the 2A as allowing the People to be armed.

    Now, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-1521.ZS.html
    M c DONALD et al. v . CITY OF CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, et al.

    Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U. S. ___, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller , petitioners filed this federal suit against the City, which was consolidated with two related actions, alleging that the City’s handgun ban has left them vulnerable to criminals. They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendment s. Rejecting petitioners’ argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, relying on three 19th-century cases— United States v. Cruikshank , 92 U. S. 542, Presser v. Illinois , 116 U. S. 252, and Miller v. Texas , 153 U. S. 535—which were decided in the wake of this Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment ’s Privileges or Immunities Clause in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36.
    Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded.
    Here again, the Court upheld the 2A by reversing the lower court ruling, and did not overturn “United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174”
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement. The faults of a few, reflect badly on many, I therefore do not suggest anyone support WAC. My EDC is either a H&K USP .40 or a Taurus 689 .357 filled with Snake Loads

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    As many here have stated, The constitution does not give authority to the Federal government to place guards in schools. While I believe that an armed response will aid in stopping an active shooter before he can inflict the types of tragedies that he looks at, the Federal government can and would use that power for other reasons as well. We have all read the reports of TSA misconduct, do you really want little Susie to be forced to go through a cavity search each day before kindergarten?

    I personally support the idea of school districts offering teachers incentives for carrying a weapon for the defense of the school. Those who don't want to wouldn't be forced to, and those who were willing to participate would be rewarded for their help. If you can't trust a teacher with a gun, why would you trust them with a child?

  23. #23
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.

    The SCOTUS can be (and has been) wrong. It can correct itself, however, despite being horribly, horribly wrong sometimes, it doesn't always.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

    <o>
    I don't see it as overturning that, militia's were those able to organize and fight, it was private citizens using private arms getting together to fight.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  24. #24
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by unreconstructed1 View Post
    If you can't trust a teacher with a gun, why would you trust them with a child?
    Good question, why do we trust them with our children........?
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    Heller and MacDonald were such overturnings. They overturned the concept fundamental to other decisions that the 2A Right belonged to the militia and not to the Individual.
    That isn't actually the case. Within a year after the adoption of the second amendment, Congress passed the general militia act of 1792. an addition to the law a couple of months later stipulated that all white males between the age of 18 and 45 are members of the "general militia".

    The law itself has been modified slightly over the last two centuries, but still exists as 10 USC § 311

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
    males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
    313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
    declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
    and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
    National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are -
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
    and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
    Naval Militia.
    source: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/I/13/311

    So while earlier Supreme court decisions used a more "collective rights" view, modern SCOTUS simply did a better job of defining who the militia really is, according to constitutional intent and longstanding Federal law.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •