Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: My Article on The McDonald Ruling

  1. #1
    Administrator John Pierce's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bristol, VA
    Posts
    1,735

    Post My Article on The McDonald Ruling

    Please read if you have a second. Mike and I do get paid by the read for our Examiner columns and every little bit helps.

    http://www.examiner.com/x-3253-Minneapolis-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m6d28-Substantive-victory-for-gun-owners

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Sotamayor's deception

    I particularly liked how you outed Sotomayor. She hid behind the cover of Plesser during confirmation, but, when presented the opportunity to leave Plesser in the dust, not being bound by it, she still ruled against the RKBA.

    Sotomayor is anti-gun. Plesser was just an excuse.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    , , Kernersville NC
    Posts
    783
    Quote Originally Posted by eye95 View Post
    I particularly liked how you outed Sotomayor. She hid behind the cover of Plesser during confirmation, but, when presented the opportunity to leave Plesser in the dust, not being bound by it, she still ruled against the RKBA.

    Sotomayor is anti-gun. Plesser was just an excuse.
    She is not anti-gun. She is anti freedom or anti-American. If you are against the constitution as it is written then you are anti-american. Period. I love the way the liberals want to pick and choose what part of the constitution they stand for. BS!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Urban Skeet City, Alabama
    Posts
    897
    The conservatives do the same when it suits them.
    It takes a village to raise an idiot.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirbinator View Post
    The conservatives do the same when it suits them.
    Yes, too many do. But NOT generally on the only subject that is the topic of this particular discussion board.

    And the courts seem far more likely to restrain those offenses than they have been to restrain infringements of RKBA and the other (off topic) areas where those left of center seem willing--even anxious--to discard the constitution.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    1,128
    Quote Originally Posted by utbagpiper View Post
    Yes, too many do. But NOT generally on the only subject that is the topic of this particular discussion board.

    And the courts seem far more likely to restrain those offenses than they have been to restrain infringements of RKBA and the other (off topic) areas where those left of center seem willing--even anxious--to discard the constitution.
    Post-McDonald, PRTKBA supporters find themselves in the shoes of all others who seek to enforce Constitutional rights through such statutes as 42 USC section 1983. It is conservative judges and their interpretation of such things as the 11th Amendment and qualified immunity that pose the greatest obstacles to enforcement of Second Amendment rights.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    2

    Victory for 2nd Amendment or Federal power?

    I know many gun rights activists are cheering this decision as a victory but this is really a serious defeat for state sovereignty. The 14th Amendment's original intent was to protect the basic rights of slaves after the War Between the States. The "Incorporation Doctrine" that the Court has invented out of thin air has no basis in that intent and has only served to further empower the Federal government in matters relegated to the States.

    The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal government from doing things to the States, and is not a list of individual rights. Is the Chicago ban bad policy, ridiculous, and tyrannical? Yes, but it would be judged to be constitutional by the founders, albeit stupid.

    We should not rely on the dictates of federal power to secure our natural rights. We have almost no influence over the Feds. People need to get control of their local governments, where they have at least some chance of influence.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent, Washington, USA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by Statesman Sentinel View Post
    The 14th Amendment's original intent was to protect the basic rights of slaves after the War Between the States.
    Yup, and one of the specific ways in which it was intended (as stated by dozens of politicians at the time, including those who wrote it) was to make it ILLEGAL for any LEO to seize firearms (of ANY kind) from former slaves (and by default anyone else) without due process. This due process can not be a general ban against a class of people other than those that can clearly not be trusted for specific public safety reasons, such as children, the mentally ill, former felons, and, these days, those involved in domestic disputes.

  9. #9
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Thumbs down America Fail

    Quote Originally Posted by Statesman Sentinel View Post

    The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal government from doing things to the States, and is not a list of individual rights.
    Cite please!

    The BoR clearly differentiates between the people and the states. The 10A is the only amendment to mention state's power.

    Exactly how does the 8th amendment, against unreasonable bail, be for the State?

    You've never read the BoR. You need to do some history homework. To be so far off base, on your first post, in the Administrator's thread, is highly suspect.

    10A: 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.

    The Constitution does not limit federal authority, it only delegates certain duties. This means the Federal Gov't can not do anything except what the constitution expressly tells it to.

    The Constitution does not delegate authority to the States, It limits their power. This means the States can do anything except what the constitution tells it not to.

    Why everyone likes to ignore the 10A, I don't know, as it directly contradicts most common and invalid conceptions of the BoR's purpose. It is true that the whole incorporation issue is B.S., but that is because the BoR, by its very nature, restricts State power. This whole bogus argument about how the BoR only effects the Federal Gov't is crazy.

    How you can try and say the BoR limits Federal against States is ludicrous. States don't have Rights. States have POWER. The ONLY AMENDMENT TO MENTION STATES, TALKS ABOUT POWER, NOT RIGHTS. The only amendment to NOT mention rights, is the only one mentioning States. This is a very important distinction.

    /RantOff
    Last edited by simmonsjoe; 07-10-2010 at 02:50 AM.

  10. #10
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    Cite please!

    The BoR clearly differentiates between the people and the states. The 10A is the only amendment to mention state's power.

    Exactly how does the 8th amendment, against unreasonable bail, be for the State?

    You've never read the BoR. You need to do some history homework. To be so far off base, on your first post, in the Administrator's thread, is highly suspect.

    10A: 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.

    The Constitution does not limit federal authority, it only delegates certain duties. This means the Federal Gov't can not do anything except what the constitution expressly tells it to.

    The Constitution does not delegate authority to the States, It limits their power. This means the States can do anything except what the constitution tells it not to.

    Why everyone likes to ignore the 10A, I don't know, as it directly contradicts most common and invalid conceptions of the BoR's purpose. It is true that the whole incorporation issue is B.S., but that is because the BoR, by its very nature, restricts State power. This whole bogus argument about how the BoR only effects the Federal Gov't is crazy.

    How you can try and say the BoR limits Federal against States is ludicrous. States don't have Rights. States have POWER. The ONLY AMENDMENT TO MENTION STATES, TALKS ABOUT POWER, NOT RIGHTS. The only amendment to NOT mention rights, is the only one mentioning States. This is a very important distinction.

    /RantOff
    You're so full of S*#t your eyes are brown. The Constitution is ONLY about limiting power. Not only of the Federal government but of the states. All the power lies in the hands of the people, and only granted to government by our will. IT is you sir that needs to do more study of not only the Constitution but of ALL the writings of the Founders. The Federalist Papers are a good place for you to start.

  11. #11
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664

    Question Reading Comprehension fail.

    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    You're so full of S*#t your eyes are brown. The Constitution is ONLY about limiting power. Not only of the Federal government but of the states. All the power lies in the hands of the people, and only granted to government by our will. IT is you sir that needs to do more study of not only the Constitution but of ALL the writings of the Founders. The Federalist Papers are a good place for you to start.
    So exactly where are you disagreeing with me?

    The poster stated the BoR did not deal with individual rights, but protected state rights against the federal govt. Rights are unalienable, and cannot be transferred from the people to state or federal power. The 10A makes it clear, the Federal gov't has NO POWER NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. (i.e. postal service, common defense, etc) The rest of the power belongs to the States, or the people. State govt's may have (depending on the State's govt) extensive powers so long as it does not violate individual Rights/Liberties.

    The States CAN NOT delegate a power it is prohibited by the Constitution/BoR from having. So it is not possible for a delegated duty of the Federal Govt to include violating an unalienable right. Any time the Fed Govt violates an unalienable right it is proof it is overstepping its authority.

    Like I said pay attention to the 10A, it is very important. The mislead by claiming the Constitution/BoR limits the power of the Fed govt, is that it implies anything not limited is acceptable. This is false. The Fed Govt has only the powers that were delegated to it. It has absolutely positively no authority to act outside of its delegated positions, even in the most inane matter.

    All the power does not lie with the people. All the power belongs to the people. Unlike with unalienable rights, power is transferable. We collectively delegate power to the State's we are residents of by enacting legislation though a legal process with representatives we vote into office.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    Cite please!
    Preamble to Bill of Rights:

    "Preamble

    Congress of the United States
    begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
    the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

    The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution..."

    A number of framers at the time of ratifying the Constitution were concerned, that without specific limitations on federal power, the central government would go beyond its delegated powers. Please take note of the phrase "restrictive clauses should be added" What do you suppose is being restricted? The only thing new being formed was the federal government. Surely they were not applying new restrictions to sovereign states, right?

    And I should add that when the states are spoken of in the Constitution, and in debates preceding its ratification, the framers were referring to the people of each. The original intent of language is very important.
    Last edited by Statesman Sentinel; 07-10-2010 at 10:49 PM.

  13. #13
    Regular Member KansasMustang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Herington, Kansas, USA
    Posts
    1,005
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    So exactly where are you disagreeing with me?

    The poster stated the BoR did not deal with individual rights, but protected state rights against the federal govt. Rights are unalienable, and cannot be transferred from the people to state or federal power. The 10A makes it clear, the Federal gov't has NO POWER NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. (i.e. postal service, common defense, etc) The rest of the power belongs to the States, or the people. State govt's may have (depending on the State's govt) extensive powers so long as it does not violate individual Rights/Liberties.

    The States CAN NOT delegate a power it is prohibited by the Constitution/BoR from having. So it is not possible for a delegated duty of the Federal Govt to include violating an unalienable right. Any time the Fed Govt violates an unalienable right it is proof it is overstepping its authority.

    Like I said pay attention to the 10A, it is very important. The mislead by claiming the Constitution/BoR limits the power of the Fed govt, is that it implies anything not limited is acceptable. This is false. The Fed Govt has only the powers that were delegated to it. It has absolutely positively no authority to act outside of its delegated positions, even in the most inane matter.

    All the power does not lie with the people. All the power belongs to the people. Unlike with unalienable rights, power is transferable. We collectively delegate power to the State's we are residents of by enacting legislation though a legal process with representatives we vote into office.
    Oooops my bad,,my apologies,,guess I got lost and misconstrued your meaning, and in further perusal have ascertained the we do agree. My bad,,seriously please accept my humble apology. Fell like I have a case of foot in mouth.
    ‘‘Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.’’ Thomas Jefferson

  14. #14
    Regular Member simmonsjoe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by KansasMustang View Post
    Oooops my bad,,my apologies,,guess I got lost and misconstrued your meaning, and in further perusal have ascertained the we do agree. My bad,,seriously please accept my humble apology. Fell like I have a case of foot in mouth.
    No problem buddy. It happens.

  15. #15
    Regular Member 07Altima's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    131

    The greatest thing of it all is

    I feel the greatest thing of this all, is that if you read the inalienable rights you will see that certain rights are retained from the BoR. For instance Life, Liberty, and Property as it was originally. to maintain Liberty, and Property one must have a way to defend his Liberty, and Property, with out being able to he would surely lose his Life. So an intelligent person would surmise that any form of ban on any weapon that could be used to protect those things that are inalienable, would in effect be not only in violation of ones inalienable rights, but also the BoR which has always reflected those protections!

    I agree that the Federal Government should not have the authority to tell the states what they have to do, nor should the Government have the right to force any state to do anything that is outside the restrictions of the Federal Government.

    I find it sad that the truth, which was so plain in their day, is now only something that this nation fights over like squabbling wild animals.

    Many great leaders have said that this nation will not fall from an enemy hand, but from the inside out. She will fall as Rome fell, because we are so bound up by the letter, and not the content!

    How I would trade all my life to return to a day that was just after the Revolutionary War. Weather I was poor, or rich would make no difference to me. To live in a place that was truly free would be worth every moment I have been alive.

    Certainly I will fight for a day that this would come again but sadly I do not believe that there are that many good people still living.

    I suppose that the best I can do is to fight as hard for that freedom as those who came before me.

  16. #16
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    5,849
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    She is not anti-gun. She is anti freedom or anti-American. If you are against the constitution as it is written then you are anti-american. Period. I love the way the liberals want to pick and choose what part of the constitution they stand for. BS!
    Amen, 'bout time someone finally said what I suspect most all of us believe to be true. Some years ago, I wrote a letter to the editorial section of the Washington Times entitled, "It's Not a Buffet of Rights". The Bill of Rights, about which we speak in these matters, comes as a complete package deal. You cannot pick and choose those right with which you agree while casting aside those you are not so sure about or don't accept at all. It is 100% or nothing.

    One thing I would remind folks when discussing these two founding documents is to be certain you distinguish which one you are referring. The Constitutions says nothing at all about rights or limitations of governmental power in the context of those rights which were recognized and known to the Founders as being set and unalienable. It sets up the foundation and defines the type of government which is to operate in the republic. Yes there are limitations mentioned but not those of rights infringements, but what powers and authority government is allowed to have and wield. That was the reason for the later writing and inclusion of the Bill of Rights. To remind government that there are places where it is never to trespass, powers it is not allowed to posses, and rights held by the people which it may never infringe.

    To this day, we continue to thank the Founders for their wisdom in drafting and including a Bill of Rights as a perennial guard against government swallowing up all before it like a tsunami. Unfortunately, over the past 150 years, that is exactly what has been happening in our country, and especially for the past 90 years. Just yesterday, I heard Congressman Sheila Jackson Lee from Texas state that the Healthcare Bill, now law, was constitutional. Now this is not meant to open a discussion about this new law but rather to show how far out and out of touch with the founding documents some of our elected officials are.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 01-20-2011 at 08:31 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    America First!

  17. #17
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    I really miss hearing from the female side of the house on these issues. I talk with with my Mom about these sorts of issues all the time. What a wonderfully well-grounded OK gal.

    I'd dive into a storm cellar with her any day!

    PS: "OK" means Oklahoma. For clarification, it's because first, she's my mom, and second, because she's good company. Don't know what some of you who emailed me were thinking...
    Last edited by since9; 01-22-2011 at 07:41 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  18. #18
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Standing before the court....and a wad of cash too.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    222
    Quote Originally Posted by simmonsjoe View Post
    So exactly where are you disagreeing with me?

    The poster stated the BoR did not deal with individual rights, but protected state rights against the federal govt. Rights are unalienable, and cannot be transferred from the people to state or federal power. The 10A makes it clear, the Federal gov't has NO POWER NOT EXPRESSLY DELEGATED BY THE CONSTITUTION. (i.e. postal service, common defense, etc) The rest of the power belongs to the States, or the people. State govt's may have (depending on the State's govt) extensive powers so long as it does not violate individual Rights/Liberties.

    The States CAN NOT delegate a power it is prohibited by the Constitution/BoR from having. So it is not possible for a delegated duty of the Federal Govt to include violating an unalienable right. Any time the Fed Govt violates an unalienable right it is proof it is overstepping its authority.

    Like I said pay attention to the 10A, it is very important. The mislead by claiming the Constitution/BoR limits the power of the Fed govt, is that it implies anything not limited is acceptable. This is false. The Fed Govt has only the powers that were delegated to it. It has absolutely positively no authority to act outside of its delegated positions, even in the most inane matter.

    All the power does not lie with the people. All the power belongs to the people. Unlike with unalienable rights, power is transferable. We collectively delegate power to the State's we are residents of by enacting legislation though a legal process with representatives we vote into office.
    BINGO!!

    We have a winner!

  20. #20
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434
    Each time the constitution refers to 'the people' it is referring to individuals. Think how it would be if freedom of speech was restricted to certain approved organizations. Or perhaps freedom of religion should be limited to approved groups only or perhaps not at all in some states. Once the second amendment refers to the right of the people it is by extrapolation referring to the right of individuals. The reason for recognizing the right (Militia) is irrelevant once the right is recognized as a right. Like freedom of speech. Once recognized it exists on it's own merit because it is a right. The reason for having been identified becomes irrelevant.

    Sorry to say but there are limits on states rights. States cannot make laws taking away rights or freedoms which are recognized as guaranteed to the people (read that individual citizens) by the US Constitution. Or certain other laws that have been reserved for the Federal Government, like printing money. Indeed states should make laws which further protect our individual rights and freedom. To often this is not the case and we have to fall back on the US Constitution as our final protector and arbitrator. Now some want to deny us this protection saying it doesn't apply to the states. Well where does it apply? Guam?

    irfner
    My opinions and I am sticking with them.

    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.

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by irfner View Post
    Each time the constitution refers to 'the people' it is referring to individuals.[
    Please capitalize that. It's The People. Thanks.

    Sorry to say but there are limits on states rights.
    Sorry to say, but you are totally not understanding the fundamental nature of our United States. Each of our states retain their sovereign authority. They "united" a few years ago because at the time, it was in their best interest to do so, but did so as little more that a loose conglomeration.

    Our Fed forgets that. Often.

    ...cannot make laws taking away rights or freedoms which are recognized as guaranteed to the people (read that individual citizens) by the US Constitution. Or certain other laws that have been reserved for the Federal Government, like printing money. Indeed states should make laws which further protect our individual rights and freedom.
    No kidding. Can't make laws which violate our Constitution, either, yet there are several on the books as we speak.

    Boehner knows that. He just wants his colleagues to know it, too.
    Last edited by since9; 02-28-2011 at 04:05 AM.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  22. #22
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    well,,,

    please delete your address,
    and dont use your full name, its easy to change your screen name, do it!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.”

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  23. #23
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by wethepeople View Post
    She is not anti-gun. She is anti freedom or anti-American. If you are against the constitution as it is written then you are anti-american. Period. I love the way the liberals want to pick and choose what part of the constitution they stand for. BS!
    But shes a wise latina didnt you hear her say that?? LMFao joke!

    Btw if you get the chance to take constitutional law class it is so much fun , yet it make you look at this once great country and makes your blood boil over

  24. #24
    Regular Member stuckinchico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Stevenson, Alabama, United States
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Statesman Sentinel View Post
    I know many gun rights activists are cheering this decision as a victory but this is really a serious defeat for state sovereignty. The 14th Amendment's original intent was to protect the basic rights of slaves after the War Between the States. The "Incorporation Doctrine" that the Court has invented out of thin air has no basis in that intent and has only served to further empower the Federal government in matters relegated to the States.

    The original intent of the Bill of Rights was to prevent the Federal government from doing things to the States, and is not a list of individual rights. Is the Chicago ban bad policy, ridiculous, and tyrannical? Yes, but it would be judged to be constitutional by the founders, albeit stupid.

    We should not rely on the dictates of federal power to secure our natural rights. We have almost no influence over the Feds. People need to get control of their local governments, where they have at least some chance of influence.
    Actually no the court merely states that the States must no infringe on any of the Bill of Rights. If you look at the federalist papers the context does not seem to suggest that it was merely to keep the FEDs from bending the states over, it appeared to have applied to the people too

Posting Permissions

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