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.
Originally posted by ravenshadow13
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
Free speech doesn't kill innocent people.
Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...on another note, in the provided news snippet, the phrase "the second amendment's commandment" smells a bit off...
[edit on 5/28/09 by Wyn Hawks]
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
I was never shocked by this, and neither were many Americans.
Many of us knew that despite claims to the contrary Obama, and his entire administration were gun-grabbers.
The intention of this post was so that the Obama fans realize the truth about Obama, and his administration.
Originally posted by XKrossX
In this ruling it says that when in doubt its up to the state to decide how the Second Amendment is applied, right?
Thats a good thing right?
Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.
--Kross--
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.
Originally posted by Double Eights
STATE Governments can infringe your right to keep and bear arms
Originally posted by Double Eights
The Federal Constitution is just that, a FEDERAL Constitution. It deals with the FEDERAL Government.
The FEDERAL Government has no right to infringe your right to keep and bear arms, as per the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.
STATE Governments can infringe your right to keep and bear arms, if said STATE Constitution doesn't have a "Second Amendment" of it's own. I live in New York State, and our Constitution/code of civil liberties has a "Second Amendment" of its own. However, my STATE Constitution can be altered to take away that right, but I don't see that ever happening.
So, yes, she is right. The STATE Governments are not bound to listen to the Second Amendment to the FEDERAL Constitution.
And while acknowledging the possibility that “Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle,” the panel deemed itself bound to follow Presser because it “directly controls, leaving to the Supreme Court the prerogative of overruling its own decisions.” Maloney’s lawyers intend to file a petition for certiorari in late June.
Originally posted by Avenginggecko
...............
So...she's a crazy liberal that defers to standing law that's been in place over a century, and leaves it up to the states to decide? Isn't that what a Conservative would do?
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
Originally posted by Lazyninja
Come to think of it: "the right to bear arms" Why would anyone want bear arms?
Silly americans. You've obviously misunderstood your constitution. How happy you must be that this woman is reinterpreting it for you.
Originally posted by MysterE
The 2nd amendment is clearly "delegated to the United States by the Constitution".
-E-
[edit on 28-5-2009 by MysterE]
Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II
Wrong. States cannot infringe on rights granted by the Constitution. All states are bound by the Constitution, and anything not granted or restricted in the Constitution is the territory of the states. Thinking the states do not have to obey federal laws is wrong.
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
BTW, incase you didn't know the main reason why our foreafathers put this as a right for ALL Americans was to defend ourselves against a dictatorial government, and this government is turning dictatorial by the day.
Originally posted by Double Eights
...................
The Federal Constitution did not have such clause, and thus the Second Amendment. If a State Amends their Constitution to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so. If the Federal Constitution is amended to outlaw guns, it has the power to do so.
Constitutional Law 101 folks.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by MysterE
He was being ironic with those statements.
He didn't mean it literally.