It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

page: 1
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:19 PM
link   
More maniacal legislation being proposed by States.

This one is Illinois of course where massive government failures loom from Chicago to the whole state.

Illinois House Resolution 855 wants the Courts to simple "re-think" what the U.S. 2nd Amendment says.

The wild claim is that the 2nd doesn't have anything to do with "private" individuals.



The text of the proposal recites a section of the dissent by Justice John Paul Stevens to the District of Columbia v. Heller ruling handed down by the Supreme Court in 2008:

The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States.

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


The politicians are cracking up like thin ice.

Illinois Resolution Seeks Seizure of Privately Owned Weapons

DaaaHaHaHaHa





Next, the author of the Illinois resolution assumes (incorrectly) that the word “militia” as used in the text of the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. There is no evidence to support this assumption.

In fact, the words of the Founders once again prove that the proposition soon to be considered in Illinois with regard to the Second Amendment’s use of the word “militia” is full of historical flaws and unsupported suppositions.




Edit: some people are getting redirected from the source article to a game site....

here is the actual bill info


edit on Dec-26-2015 by xuenchen because: problem with redirects (not everybody)




posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Your link redirects to another website. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, given the usual quality of the "sources" you use.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Blazemore2000

You might have a virus.



here's a link to the actual bill....
ILL-HR0855



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

My phone has no virus and it redirects as well.

Face it it's a trash source.



Now with that said...

Summary
Urges the courts, especially the United States Supreme Court, to adhere to the clear wording of the Second Amendment being a right afforded to state-sponsored militias and not individuals.


Interesting.

It's about time this was settled,
The 2nd says nothing about self defence or hunting, just for the protection of a Free State.

I don't think open carrying in your local 7/11 counts as keeping the people safe from government.



Overall who gives a toss.
If they ban weapons it won't make a difference.
Too many to collect.
Too easy to get a hold of.

Moot argument which is election race filler at best.


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

While we laugh, there are those that work at getting the 2nd revoked.

I wonder how many would scoff if the 1st Amendment was treated the same?


+22 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

The part about having a gun at the 7/11 is "the right to keep and bear" bit. If you can't carry your firearms around, then you can't bear it very well, can you?



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
I too thought this was a joke or something but I guess it's not.
Bill found here
www.ilga.gov...

Sponsors of the bill
Emanuel Chris Welch
www.ilga.gov...
Pamela Reaves-Harris
www.ilga.gov...
Jaime M Andrade Jr
www.ilga.gov...



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Difference is people don't add to the 1st Amendment that which isn't written.

Home invasions, hunting, and overall jackassery "carrying because I can" isn't written in the 2nd.



Before you assume I'm against the above, I'm not.
If I want a gun for any of those reasons, I'll buy one... or two...


I don't need a 200 year old piece of paper to tell me it's "my right".

I know my rights.



"When a law becomes unjust, defiance becomes a duty" - Some absolute f#ing genius!!!



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:43 PM
link   
This will never pass a Supreme Court consideration.

The Militia Act of 1903 defines every man from 17-45, who is able to fight, as being a member of the unorganized militia. The 2nd would, therefore, allow for the right of individuals to posses arms.

Then if you apply Equal Application of the Law, you will have a Supreme Court striking this down quickly.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Absolutely it could be interpreted as such.

& should be.

And hopefully will be.



Doesn't mean the question doesn't need answering fully.


+17 more 
posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs


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.


You will notice there is a comma between "state" and "the" denoting two separate clauses?

The condition of the first clause is dependent on the condition of the second. In other words, if the people are not free to keep and bear arms, then we will not have a well regulated militia which is necessary to a free state.

So, it is necessary that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed. This is the part that talks about hunting and packing at the 7/11. Bearing arms means to carry your gun around. Keeping arms means owning them. If you can carry your arms around, it would follow that you can also use them to do things like hunting. Certainly your militia suffers and isn't well regulated if no one can use the guns they own or carry around with them.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: DBCowboy

Difference is people don't add to the 1st Amendment that which isn't written.

Home invasions, hunting, and overall jackassery "carrying because I can" isn't written in the 2nd.



Before you assume I'm against the above, I'm not.
If I want a gun for any of those reasons, I'll buy one... or two...


I don't need a 200 year old piece of paper to tell me it's "my right".

I know my rights.



"When a law becomes unjust, defiance becomes a duty" - Some absolute f#ing genius!!!


Texting and emoji's aren't in the 1st.

Just wanted to point that out.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Where is it being redirected to?

this is the site address - (minus the spaces)
http:// www. thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22206-illinois-resolution-seeks-seizure-of-privately-owned-weapons?utm_content=bufferb32ef&utm_medium=soci al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

perhaps a regional redirect?


edit on Dec-26-2015 by xuenchen because: nick nick



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Hmm that's wierd, because my Gov sponsored COTUS app says the following...

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.


You see that second third comma, denoting a different meaning to the entire paragraph.

I know I don't need to explain to you what those between-2-comma-sentences mean.
edit on 26-12-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Stricken, but kept for record sake.

edit on 26-12-2015 by CharlieSpeirs because: Fixed first edit.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Where is it being redirected to?

this is the site address - (minus the spaces)
http:// www. thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22206-illinois-resolution-seeks-seizure-of-privately-owned-weapons?utm_content=bufferb32ef&utm_medium=soci al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

perhaps a regional redirect?



When I clicked I was redirected to freegamenews.com and had 6 pop-ups blocked.

Find a better source, instead of the usual click-bait nonsense.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen




Next, the author of the Illinois resolution assumes (incorrectly) that the word “militia” as used in the text of the Second Amendment applies to the National Guard and the Reserves. There is no evidence to support this assumption.

In fact, the words of the Founders once again prove that the proposition soon to be considered in Illinois with regard to the Second Amendment’s use of the word “militia” is full of historical flaws and unsupported suppositions.






hmmmm. Bill of rights 1780s...national guard and reserve created in 1906 or 1907... and even the militia act itself was 6 months later than the ratification of the BOR. Sooo...

Here is my counter proposal. All criminals liars and other assorted and sundry rabble seeking public office must take and pass a civics test in which they demonstrate a correct understanding of the history of the founders, of the historical record of their speeches, debates, minutes, and of all letters which pertain to aspects of the founding documents of this nation and their own state. Failure to pass this exam results in disqualification from office and such disqualification is retroactive for any who are in office at the time the test is created and administered.
edit on 26-12-2015 by stormbringer1701 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Blazemore2000

You might have a virus.



Um... no. But thank you for the link to the actual bill. That makes things simpler, and propaganda free.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Some free games website.

For me anyways.



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I believe there is actually another comma as well.


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.


Cornell Law



posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I believe there is actually another comma as well.


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.


Cornell Law


You're correct, I completely missed that on my perusal of the COTUS app.

Starting to think it's a list rather than what I initially thought could be one of many interpretations.



new topics




 
27
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join