ACCOUNTABILITY

imported post

The issue of Federal rights versus State rights is just as confused and clouded today as it was in the 1860's. At the time this country fought a war of "brothers killing brothers". The Civil War was not fought to "free the slaves" as many of us were taught. The emancipation of the slaves was a result of the Civil War but the principle reason it was fought was over the power of the Federal Government over State rights. The Federal government wanted to edict that human slavery would no longer be tolerated within the United States. The Southern states disagreed with that edict and declared that the issue of slavery was a matter that should be resolved by the individual states themselves. The disagreement became so pronounced that the Southern states seceeded fron the Union and the Civil War was the result.

Today it seems the question of Federal rights versus States rights is not much closer to being answered than in 1865.

In regards to the 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. That split should not come as a suprise to anyone. It does not necessarily mean that we were very close to losing our Second amendment rights. With four liberal judges and four conservative judges and one that can go either way it is probable that unless a case transcends both the bounds of liberalism and conservatism that most decisions the current Court makes will be 5 - 4.

imported post

Doug Huffman wrote:

How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.

Click to expand...

Me? Dunno. Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.

imported post

Teej wrote:

Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.

Click to expand...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/73850

Click the second interview on gun control.

imported post

Article I, §25
Right to keep and bear arms. Section 25. [As created Nov. 1998] The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. [1995 J.R. 27, 1997 J.R. 21, vote November 1998]


Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
The concealed weapons statute is a restriction on the manner in which firearms are possessed and used. It is constitutional under Art. I, s. 25. Only if the public benefit in the exercise of the police power is substantially outweighed by an individual's need to conceal a weapon in the exercise of the right to bear arms will an otherwise valid restriction on that right be unconstitutional. The right to keep and bear arms for security, as a general matter, must permit a person to possess, carry, and sometimes conceal arms to maintain the security of a private residence or privately operated business, and to safely move and store weapons within those premises. State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
A challenge on constitutional grounds of a prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon requires affirmative answers to the following before the defendant may raise the constitutional defense: 1) under the circumstances, did the defendant's interest in concealing the weapon to facilitate exercise of his or her right to keep and bear arms substantially outweigh the state's interest in enforcing the concealed weapons statute? and 2) did the defendant conceal his or her weapon because concealment was the only reasonable means under the circumstances to exercise his or her right to bear arms? State v. Hamdan, 2003 WI 113, 264 Wis. 2d 433, 665 N.W.2d 785, 01-0056.


Article I, §25 - ANNOT.
Under both Hamdan and Cole there are 2 places in which a citizen's desire to exercise the right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security is at its apex: in the citizen's home or in his or her privately-owned business. It logically and necessarily follows that the individual's interest in the right to bear arms for purposes of security will not, as a general matter, be particularly strong outside those two locations. An individual generally has no heightened interest in his or her right to bear arms for security while in a vehicle. State v. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, 290 Wis. 2d 121, 714 N.W.2d 495, 04-2989.


Article I, Section 25 was clear and approved by the voters of WI. The court has dictated rather than follow the will of the people. Maybe the court won't like the results of Novembers elections and change them too. It really @#$!%'s me off that we have been told to stay home or at work if we want to defend ourselves. It seems to me that the 2 places should have been gun free zones and any location a gun toting criminal could go. People that are potential jurors have to be informed that they have the power to keep the court in check.

imported post

Teej wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.

Click to expand...

Me? Dunno. Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.

Click to expand...

I suppose that's because there were no recording devices around 1787.

imported post

Federal vs. State

Someone earlier mentioned the civil war was not fought because of slavery. Absolutely true. Slavery was simply one of the issues that exposed the right of states vs the ever growing control of the federal government.

People easily are misled about the original intent of the Constitution. It was designed to do simply two things.

1. It was the guarantee of certain unalienable rights to the individual sovereign peoples of the United States. These rights were not to be violated by any man or any form of Government.

2. Most importantly and least understood or taught is the Constitution's second primary purpose was designed to Absolutely limit the Federal Government to stay strictly within the written original intent of the Constitution.

Things like the Federal reserve are totally unconstitutional-FEMA-unconstitutional (because it has no mandate granted by the Constitution or Congressional over-site).

BATF-unconstitutional-and the list goes on and on.

Anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is to be left to the States alone and is OFF LIMITS for the Fed's. The State Government is made up from local County and municipal constituencies.

The problem today is the Federal Government has gone so outside of their defined limitations and become so fantastically huge and controlling and for so long that most Americans (many who have very little knowledge of our early history) have become quite accustomed to the form of government we currently have.

How many Americans have ever read the Federalist papers-know how long the revolutionary war lasted-know when the Constitution was signed-etc.

They have no idea the Bible was the standard reading tool in classrooms in America through the 19th Century. Read the New England primer which was the standard 1st grade english reader up until just short of the 1900's.

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government and limits it quite substantially.

The only limit the State has is that it can not take away or violate the individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Washington DC is a corporation. February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. Irefer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section34, SessionIII, chapters61 and62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land. In fact Washington DC is a Corporation. That has trickled into the States over the years.

That though, is a whole other story.

imported post

Shotgun wrote:

Teej wrote:

Doug Huffman wrote:

How many politicians speaking for - just speaking for- the uninfringed Second Amendment have ever crossed you/us on any other political hot-button issues?

The 2A as written is too poorly focused as a political issue to be a litmus test. Heck, even Rock 'Bama! can say he is for the 2A. And his right-wing Democrat opponent me-toos.

Conservatism is not libertarianism, it is how things were done, the things that got us to where we are. I am pleased to be a conservative.

Click to expand...

Me? Dunno. Don't think I've ever heard any politician speaking for an uninfringed 2A.

Click to expand...

I suppose that's because there were no recording devices around 1787.

Click to expand...

Does Doug or anyone expect everything to go the way you want it? I'm sure that we've all felt that we had been crossed on some issue. The 2A should never become an issue, conservative or liberal. The founding fathers of our country wanted to make sure that future generations would never have to be abused by this government because they knew what it was like. All I have been doing here is supporting our constitutions, U.S. and WI, and present with facts on how our 2A rights are being "infringed". Neither party is going to be happy until we become subjects. (I'm not even sure where Doug is coming from because both parties have crossed us in more ways than we probably know about.)

imported post

Virtus Honoris wrote:

Federal vs. State

Someone earlier mentioned the civil war was not fought because of slavery. Absolutely true. Slavery was simply one of the issues that exposed the right of states vs the ever growing control of the federal government.

People easily are misled about the original intent of the Constitution. It was designed to do simply two things.

1. It was the guarantee of certain unalienable rights to the individual sovereign peoples of the United States. These rights were not to be violated by any man or any form of Government.

2. Most importantly and least understood or taught is the Constitution's second primary purpose was designed to Absolutely limit the Federal Government to stay strictly within the written original intent of the Constitution.

Things like the Federal reserve are totally unconstitutional-FEMA-unconstitutional (because it has no mandate granted by the Constitution or Congressional over-site).

BATF-unconstitutional-and the list goes on and on.

Anything not specifically spelled out in the Constitution is to be left to the States alone and is OFF LIMITS for the Fed's. The State Government is made up from local County and municipal constituencies.

The problem today is the Federal Government has gone so outside of their defined limitations and become so fantastically huge and controlling and for so long that most Americans (many who have very little knowledge of our early history) have become quite accustomed to the form of government we currently have.

How many Americans have ever read the Federalist papers-know how long the revolutionary war lasted-know when the Constitution was signed-etc.

They have no idea the Bible was the standard reading tool in classrooms in America through the 19th Century. Read the New England primer which was the standard 1st grade english reader up until just short of the 1900's.

The Constitution only limits the Federal Government and limits it quite substantially.

The only limit the State has is that it can not take away or violate the individual right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Washington DC is a corporation. February 21, 1871 and the Forty-First Congress is in session. Irefer you to the "Acts of the Forty-First Congress," Section34, SessionIII, chapters61 and62. On this date in the history of our nation, Congress passed an Act titled: "An Act To Provide A Government for the District of Columbia." This is also known as the "Act of 1871." What does this mean? Well, it means that Congress, under no constitutional authority to do so, created a separate form of government for the District of Columbia, which is a ten mile square parcel of land. In fact Washington DC is a Corporation. That has trickled into the States over the years.

That though, is a whole other story.

Click to expand...

Excelent!!! I just wanted to point out that we were never intended to be limited to only the rights listed. Some founders didn't even want the list because they were concerned that it might be interpreted as our only rights. Federalist papers are a must read for those of you that haven't.

imported post

Virtus Honoris wrote:

They have no idea the Bible was the standard reading tool in classrooms in America through the 19th Century. Read the New England primer which was the standard 1st grade english reader up until just short of the 1900's.

Click to expand...

The Bible is used as text in our 'one-room-schoolhouse' (~75 K-12) even today. And in our active home-schooling group.

We have to send $1/2Million to the Drecknical College, equal to 1/2 of our school budget. TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION by an appointed independent taxing body.

imported post

Good points. Some founding fathers were against the Bill of rights since it prohibited the government from meddling in things it wasn't even given the power to do under the Constitition. But we can thank God that they wrote that stuff down. If not, we would have probably been disarmed in the 1960's orin the 1990's.

imported post

If you think you're allowed to have any rights in Wisconsin, read this story:
http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080723/WDH0101/807230665
STEVENS POINT -- The man who police say drove for three hours in a car with a man in the back seat who had shot himself made an initial court appearance Tuesday on a charge of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Stevens Point police stopped Adrian Facundo's car at about 12:30 p.m. July 5 after information received by the Portage County Sheriff's Department indicated the driver might be drunk, there was a passenger passed out in the back seat and they might have been headed to the hospital.

Experts determined that the passenger in the back seat, Travis Mills, a 27-year-old Almond man, died from an accidental, self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Facundo, 46, of Almond was cited for operating while intoxicated and operating after license revocation, police said.

Facundo, who appeared Tuesday without his lawyer, told the judge that he has paranoid schizophrenia. The judge ordered his bond continued while Facundo's case plays out in court.

The criminal complaint states Facundo told police he was trying to get the passenger to the hospital because he was not feeling well. Facundo told investigators the passenger had shot himself in his car and that afterward, Facundo grabbed the gun and three bullets and tossed them into a ditch.

Facundo has previous convictions in Waushara County for possession of cocaine and bail jumping, according to the criminal complaint.

-----

So a passenger shoots himself, the driver removes the gun from the passenger so the driver and the passenger don't get shot from a second attempt, and the driver is charged with felony possession.