Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

Yes, courts do not make laws. They do not have the power at all. He is confused a little.

IMO the 2nd amendment states that the people are allowed to organize and regulate a milita seperate from government authority, AND keep and bear arms.

I think it was a given, that Jefferson(whom I believe wrote most of it) had no doubt that he intended arms to be allowed to be kept by the average citizen. We must also keep in mind that in the late 18th century, LOTS of people still hunted daily for meat. And most communities didn't have dependable, knowledgable law enforecment, so firearms were the best form of personal, and property security. It was likely a rarity to see any home, outside of urban centers, without a firearm of some sort. I don't think there was any question within ANYONE at the time, that arms could be allowed to be forcibly taken away. I think that that is inherent in the 2nd amendment. And to me is evident in the flow of the amendment itself. The words 'and the right of the people' at the very end seem to me, to be added just to reinforce the fact.

The purpose of the amendment IMO was to allow the people to keep a 'semi-army' that could be trained openly, officered with the best people available, and funded without government duress. (The National Guard)

:edit: I just read the 9th amendment apparently for the first time. Because it does not ring any bells for me.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Could it be argued that what the 2nd amendment has to say about non-militia possession of firearms is mute? and of no consequence because of this amendment? Am I understanding this amendment correctly? That the people can hold any right they want as unalienable? Does it come down to a popular vote?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by nextguyinline]

Someone made a good point by stating that few of our laws are actually legal. This is true. While states can enact a lot of laws, the federal government is prohibited by the Constitution from doing any more than provide for the defense of the nation, establish a federal court system, things like that. It certainly has no right to infringe on the right to bear arms.

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.

Clearly, this is not specifying one right, but two. The right to a well regulated militia will not be infringed. And the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice, it doesn't say "the right of the people to keep and bear whatever arms the corrupt Congress deems appropriate."

There is a lot of evidence that suggests that the Founders included this phrase to make a legal safeguard against tyrrany. They were firm believers in the fact that tyrranical governments should be overthrown, seeing as they had just fought a revolution. They believed that if the government they were creating became too powerful, the citizens had a right and responsibility to rise up and overthrow.

A militia is not the same as a military. Some have attempted to say that the militia is merely the National Guard. This is blatantly false. A militia is under civilian authority, for the same reason I've already mentioned. If the federal government oversteps its bounds, do you expect the National Guard to take it out? I don't think so. But a civilian militia of well-armed citizens might.


EDIT: If you don't think the judicial system can make laws, you need to start paying attention. Judges legislate from the bench all the time. Take a look at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It tries to make so many new laws that the Supreme Court is flooded with its mess. If a federal judge rules that it is unconstitutional for citizens to bear arms, it essentially becomes unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court overturns the ruling. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, guess what? The judicial system has just legislated total gun control into our lives.

[edit on 12/11/2006 by southern_cross3]

Like I said before, legislatures make statutes. Courts interpret the statutes, and the Courts' interpretations of statutes are "the law." Granted there is much philosophical debate as to how loosely courts should interpret statutes, and how,if, and when they should close gaps in statutes by creating law, but nevertheless this is what courts in the US have been doing since colonial times.

Let us assume that there is a statute that says one is "not allowed to walk one's dog without a leash." You are seen walking your pet bear down the street. In a previous court decision, the supreme court says that for this law's purposes a dog is defined as any animal that can potentially bite or attack a person. If you go to court and say you are not covered by the statute because you were walking your bet bear and the statute says "dog" you will lose because even though *the STATUTE* says dog, the law says any animal that can potentially bite or attack a person, which is what a bear it. It is perhaps inappropriate for the court to interpret the statute that way, but that is how the court interpreted the statute and that is what the statute is.

You bring up valid points that gun control laws may ultimately prove fatal in disarming criminals, and we would all hope that any judge would consider this when making the determination if any particular gun control should be legal.

We would both agree that not allowing people to bring uzis on airplanes is a good law. I have no problem with a law abiding person bringing an unloaded gun (just because a loaded gun might accidentally go off), a knife, sword, etc on a plane. The problem is, if we allow good people to bring these items on planes we would inevitably allow bad people to have these items. The logic behind gun control is that if nobody is allowed to hold guns, or at least nobody in a particular situation is allowed to hold guns, there would be no guns for good people and criminals. We both agree such a gun control law would only be effective if we were able to get the guns out of the hands of criminals, which is highly debatable in many circumstances. In the case of not allowing guns on airplanes, it is relatively easy, although gaps in security can and do exist, to keep all guns off planes. In the case of eliminating guns from an entire city or state, we would both agree that such an undertaking would be quited difficult. Also, the interests in keeping guns off planes is accute, while the interests in keeping guns out of society in general is less accute. Since the interests of keeping guns off planes is so accute, it makes the rule valid.

So in determining if a gun control law is constitutional, we should look at 1) whether the law can be reasonably enforced to keep guns out of the hands of wrongdoers and 2) whether the interests in eliminating guns from a particular situation are great. We can have a field day arguing poinst 1 and 2 for any particular gun control law, but we should both agree that their are situations where points 1 and 2 are satisfied and guns should not be allowed.

If a federal judge rules that it is unconstitutional for citizens to bear arms, it essentially becomes unconstitutional unless the Supreme Court overturns the ruling. If the Supreme Court upholds the ruling, guess what? The judicial system has just legislated total gun control into our lives.

Wrong. As I recall, the federal judge that would rule in that favor, would make that judgement against a law(that the legislature wrote, and was then agreed to by the executives), that had been brought to the federal judge by an attorney of some sort.

A judge doesn't wake up one day and say to him/herself, "I think I'm going to make the 2nd amendment of the constitution, unconstitutional".

Judges cannot make laws. If a federal judge did somehow make that declaration, what law would be enforced? There would have to be a law against the bearing of arms. Hence, the legislature, upon hearing of the judges declaration, would scurry into session and pass non-posession laws.

But then again, I don't know politics very well, and I could be way off.

If a judge declares a statute unconstitutional, what would happen is that nobody would be able to use the law in any type of suit, that is unless some other judge wants to challenge the ruling. The other judge is less likely to challenge the ruling if the first judge was at a higher court. So let us say Judge A or the court of Appeals rules that law X is unconstitutional. If someone is charged with violating law X in Judge B's courtroom, he will likely throw out the case because Judge A previously ruled law X was unconstitutional and if Judge A is a lower court, he has to follow the higher court's ruling. Judge A could decide to try the case anyway, but the defendant would likely appeal saying law X is unconstitutional. The defendant will most likely prevail, unless the appeals court wants to reverse itself.

WyrdeOne-

I mean WMD as in NBC weapons. No militia should have the right to acquire such weapons. Even though I wish they were banned entirely, I believe it to be a federal issue only. Calling a pipe bomb, a handgrenade, an IED, C4, mortor, tank, fighter jet, helicopter, you name it- if it isn't NBC, it's not a WMD. Now NBC news... yeah that's a WMD

So it looks like there is sort of a consensus leaning towards my bias.

Next question is, how do you influence the policy to make our country more 1776 and not 1984. Wether or not you agree with the notion that we are losing freedoms faster than you can cook flapjacks, you have to admit it looks a lot like Orwell's vision of the future. With that said:

What steps can be taken, and I mean NON-VIOLENT steps, to influence policy?

What steps can be taken to wake people up?

Who would benefit from us reverting back to how our founding fathers invisioned "The Constitution of the People" instead of the "U.S. Constitution"?

Who would suffer from this switch?

Anyone good with timelines? How long would a civil plan like this take?



p.s. i'm going to just throw this line out there, bite if you want, but what if it were a law that every man and woman older than 21 were required by law to attend a minimum of 15 hours firearms training, and a minimum 15 hours operation. After background checks, what about making it a law to own a firearm in your house. Larger caliber rifles with houses with many acres (away from other people!), and shotguns and small caliber for residential areas? I haven't thought this out entirely, just a thought. Bite if you want.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by jaguarmike]

What's great about America is that one can *choose* whether they want to own a gun or not. I think law abiding people should be allowed to keep weapons that can be reasonably used for their protection, but at the same time people should be allowed to choose not to keep guns if they wish.

Originally posted by jaguarmike




p.s. i'm going to just throw this line out there, bite if you want, but what if it were a law that every man and woman older than 21 were required by law to attend a minimum of 15 hours firearms training, and a minimum 15 hours operation. After background checks, what about making it a law to own a firearm in your house. Larger caliber rifles with houses with many acres (away from other people!), and shotguns and small caliber for residential areas? I haven't thought this out entirely, just a thought. Bite if you want.

[edit on 11-12-2006 by jaguarmike]

I wouldn't have a problem with this if the training were free. Now as far as what firearms you can own according to where you live, I have a problem.

Kids need to be trained too. I started mine out at about 8yrs.

As the law is now you must have a background check before a firearm purchase at a gun shop. I recently bought a AR-15 lower and went through it, takes very little time.

I'm not in favor of making anyone own a gun .

Roper

Originally posted by crusader97

I thought courts only interpreted laws, and didn't make them. I think one of the greatest shortcomings in US law is that the legislatures never give an "intent" when they vote a law into being - such as "The intent of the 2nd amendment is that anyone that wants a gun can have one for SELF DEFENSE" or "It is our intent that the Government set forth in this Constitution allow the people religious freedom, however it's management and actions will be based on Christian Principles".

[edit on 11-12-2006 by crusader97]

Excellent point Crusader,

Courts do interpret the law. However think about this carefully. It is possible for a legislature to pass a law with the intent that it be struck down in courts in order to establish a precident for generations to follow. IN this manner both the legislatures and Judicial systems work together. No seperation or checks and balances between the branchs of government in this scenerio.

What astute politicians and social engineers have discovered is that laws that they want passed and will not go through with public consent..or consent of the legislative body can be defaulted through by judicial decree. This is just another way of getting a unpopular law through.

The classic example is Roe vs Wade.

This was done by judicial decree when most of the legislatures turned it down. Understand now. THere are much deeper reasons for this but that is another topic.
This is a method of defaulting through against the public will ..while the politicians quote the "will of the public."

We are talking about politics here ..not the will of the people or public.
This is why it is such a vehement and emotional drama whenever a supreme or appellate court seat becomes available. Each appointment has such huge implications for the public benifit..but is often instead hijacked by the political partys under the "Guise " of the pubic will and benifit. This is something very different. To stack the courts with judges you want or desire is to weaken the seperation or checks and balances between branchs of government against the will of the people and in favor of the political partys...not for the public benifit.

When you come to understand that the political partys represent the political partys first...not the public...then you begin to take a different road in understanding the political process in this country.
You also begin to take a different view in understanding the media and its relationship to the political process.
It is not really any different in other countrys. It just looks so...on the surface.

To clearly state intent by politicians is to tip thier hand or put light on what they are really doing. They much prefer to work in darkness..especially on crucial events concerning the political partys.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by nextguyinline

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Could it be argued that what the 2nd amendment has to say about non-militia possession of firearms is mute? and of no consequence because of this amendment? Am I understanding this amendment correctly? That the people can hold any right they want as unalienable? Does it come down to a popular vote?

[edit on 11-12-2006 by nextguyinline]

nextguyinline,

I dont think you have taken the Constitution or the 9th Amendment far enough. I suggest you also look at Amendment 10. Then combine this with Amendment 9. What the founders did to get Patrick Henry on board...was to say the same thing in two different directions because even back then Patrick Henry was very well aware of the growth potential of a run away government.

What they state in Amendment 9 is that any rights not specifically stated or enumerated in the Constitution shall not be used to deny other rights of the people.

Then in Amendment 10 they come back from the other direction to also state that any rights not specificially stated in the constitution belong to the people or the states ...not the Federal Government. In otherwords... if we didnt specifically say this you cant do this either it belongs to the people or the states.

They were very well aware of the Axiom ...The best government a people can have is the "least " government a people can have.

It does not come down to a vote...though they would have you think so by dumbing down people in the media and public schools.

Rights cannot be taken away...except by dumbing down a people to where they dont know they even have them. This is one of the primary purposes of public education. To get you to cede your rights away..unknowingly or in fear.

Rights cannot be taken away..however you can cede them in ignorance or willingly by certain actions you take. Whether in ignorance or willingly makes no difference.

Do you see any classes anywhere ..taught on how to take advantage of or understand clearly your rights in daily situations?? Especially taught by public schools. Do they even teach any specifics of the constitution anymore...or just mention it in passing??

This is why you see me often making the statement a benevolent government just looking out for you....you know..just like that media outlet.."looking out for you. " NOT!!!!

THere are other specifics in the Constitution such that if you knew the implications..further than the 2nd Amendment...you would be really pissed off but that is another topic. Most of these changes have come since after 1865 and the end of the Civil War. They are very telling if you know what they mean.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Those who don't believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to citizens must answer this question. Why does the people mean the people in every other amendment, but not in the case of the 2nd? One only needs to read the Federalist papers, and the writings of the Founding Fathers about personal gun ownership, to know this to be the case.

www.dojgov.net...

I am actually taking a constitutional law course, and the person that will be teaching it should qualify as a constitutional expert. Are there any questions you would like satisfied? I can pick his/her brain and give you answers in a few months time.

I guess just every question we've had on the board so far. Both sides have their documents and sources, but which one is legit? I'd ask the professor that question.

Great source by the way!!!! www.dojgov.net... Thanks for bringing it to the table!

My personal favorites....

"ALEXANDER HAMILTON

'The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.' "

AND

" 'The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed and that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of press.' Thomas Jefferson"

" 'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.' Thomas Jefferson"

If there is a way to sum up the whole issue in three quotes, from my perspective there you go. So it looks like we've had one too many generation gaps regarding how England was to us, and how we solved the problem. And also how the bankers have raped America. We became soft from not being educated on what mattered. Remember back to middle school when you learned all of this? Didn't have much of an impact with the way it was presented did it...

Tyrants and Bankers, our possible demise

[edit on 12-12-2006 by jaguarmike]

[edit on 12-12-2006 by jaguarmike]

Serious question:

Does a US citizen AlQeada operative have a constitutional right to go about attempting to overthrow the government by violent means, bearing arms as a "militia", as provided for in the constitution. If not, why not?

No, he wants to make the USA a nation under Islam. His revolution is not one of freedom.

Roper

Originally posted by jaguarmike
Over the weekend I had a huge debate with one of my friends regarding the 2nd amendment. My view was that we are entitled firearms to protect our person and residence, as well as overthrow a corrupt government- all protected under the 2nd. Therefor, we are entitled the same grade of weapon as any potential threat or potential enemy.

Now, his argument was that no, no one is entitled any weapon under the 2nd, and the only reason we are able to have them is because it would be too hard to take them away and explain how the law was misinterpreted. He believes it applies solely to state militias, such as the National Guard- and they are the only group under the Constitution that is entitled firearms.

So, what does the 2nd amendment really mean? Does it entitle law-abiding citizens weapons? Military grade weapons? Only State Militias? Is the National Guard the only militia allowed?

I'm confused, please clarify.

Hi,

Though not an "x-spert" on the Constitution, I can definitely tell you this:
You, and everyone else that is not a convicted Felon, has the RIGHT to "keep and bear arms".

Where the apparent confusion lies--and the Supreme Court is fully aware of it--is in the definition of "militia". In the historic time that the Constitution was drafted, and still today, the Legal definition of "militia" is,
"any able bodied male individual 16 years or older". This definition is carried over into another Law, that of the Military Draft, which is still on the Books, only under Moratorium at the moment, and can be re instituted at any time. So long as this definition of "militia" is so utilized, the Second Amendment will remain. FWIW--"militia" does NOT mean Military Forces alone, and is inclusive and applied to the entire population with few exceptions.

Hope this helps.

Originally posted by Roper
No, he wants to make the USA a nation under Islam. His revolution is not one of freedom.

Roper

How is a nation "under" Islam any different in this regard to a nation under God*. And at any rate, since when has AlQeada's aim been to install Muslim law in USA, I thought their aim was to remove the infidel (Christains etc) from the land of the two holy places (i.e. the Arabian peninsular)

But more importantantly, where does the constitution limit the acceptable motivations for the civilian militia that we've been talking about?


* As in Christain God.

Originally posted by planeman
Serious question:

Does a US citizen AlQeada operative have a constitutional right to go about attempting to overthrow the government by violent means, bearing arms as a "militia", as provided for in the constitution. If not, why not?

Watch the placebo..here..some of you need to think further than what is stated...and think.

The US Citizen ..has the "Constitutional Right" to keep and bear arms...

The term used or misused here is Constitutional Right to go about attempting to overthrow the government. This is a chicken or egg type question. THere is no Constitutional Right to overthrow the government.

Just like in 1776...to do this you must "WIN." Notice in this placebo this is left out.

Remember what I said in a earlier post...if guns were banned ...wouldnt it be more likely that a burgular entering your house to steal would also be unarmed?? Placebo??...Think!!!

THe key to any revolution is ...you must win!!

THe other way to win is to dumb down the public so that they dont catch on. Dont worry ..our leaders too are fully capable of this. Public education/television education.


Also if you want a education on this Islamic trend...read.

"Islam and Terrorism"

By Mark Gabriel a converted Imam.

for the three stages by which Islam outlines plans to take over many nations.

Thanks,
Orangetom