Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

Originally posted by mrbarber
reply to post by Double Eights

 

I am asking you to show me an example in the NY Constitution of something that is contrary to the Rights and/or Laws guaranteed by the US Constitution. I just read the NY Bill of Rights and see nothing that is contrary to or in conflict with the US B-o-R.

What the # are you talking about? What do you mean conflict?

All I've said in this entire debate is that New York State is not bound by the Bill of Rights, as the Bill of Rights are things the FEDERAL Government can't infringe upon. The State Governments already know what they can't infringe upon, such things ARE ALREADY IN THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]

Preamble to the Bill of Rights...

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

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

First, notice the bold words. Why would the States agree to add more declaratory and restrictive clauses against themselves?

Second, notice the words between the bold words. "having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" Whose powers you ask? Why, the Federal Governments powers!

The State's already had their own Constitution, which told each State what they could and couldn't do. The powers they are talking about in this preamble are the powers delegated to the Federal Government that they just created, vis-a-vis the Federal Constitution.

Originally posted by Double Eights

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. - 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.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. - 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now you can argue to your little hearts content as long as ya want, it still doesn't change the fact that in order for an amendment to be passed the majority of the states must agree to it, and they all agreed to this.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can cite as many books as you want but it doesn't change the fact that one mans interpretation of something doesn't change the fact that this is Law.



And just a little fyi, the language you have exhibited numerous times throughout your postings have served to do nothing more than making you look childish and dumb which ultimately invalidates any argument you have.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by C0le]

Originally posted by C0le

Originally posted by Double Eights

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. - 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.

Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. - 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Now you can argue to your little hearts content as long as ya want, it still doesn't change the fact that in order for an amendment to be passed the majority of the states must agree to it, and they all agreed to this.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You can cite as many books as you want but it doesn't change the fact that one mans interpretation of something doesn't change the fact that this is Law.



[edit on 29-5-2009 by C0le]

Read the book before you reply to me.

Learn what "citizen" and "person" mean.

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by mrbarber
reply to post by Double Eights

 

I am asking you to show me an example in the NY Constitution of something that is contrary to the Rights and/or Laws guaranteed by the US Constitution. I just read the NY Bill of Rights and see nothing that is contrary to or in conflict with the US B-o-R.

What the # are you talking about? What do you mean conflict?

All I've said in this entire debate is that New York State is not bound by the Bill of Rights, as the Bill of Rights are things the FEDERAL Government can't infringe upon. The State Governments already know what they can't infringe upon, such things ARE ALREADY IN THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS.

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]

What about the 6th amendment? My understanding is that the state constition cannot (federal crime of course) supercede this bill. Is this correct?

"That the Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent "the people" of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-Samuel Adams in arguing for a Bill of Rights, from the book "Massachusetts," published by Pierce & Hale, Boston, 1850, pg. 86-87.

How much do you people need to understand the Bill of Rights?

Originally posted by BearackWhat about the 6th amendment? My understanding is that the state constition cannot (federal crime of course) supercede this bill. Is this correct?

The Sixth Amendment pertains to the Federal Government. For Federal prosecutions, the 6th is applicable.

Trial by jury (for State prosecutions) is guaranteed in your State Constitution/Bill of Rights. So for State prosecutions, you have your rights protected via said clause in your individual State constitution.

Go read your constitution, you will find all the Bill of Rights (1791, amendments 1-10) located in your state constitution text or your state Bill of Rights.

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by BearackWhat about the 6th amendment? My understanding is that the state constition cannot (federal crime of course) supercede this bill. Is this correct?

The Sixth Amendment pertains to the Federal Government. For Federal prosecutions, the 6th is applicable.

Trial by jury (for State prosecutions) is guaranteed in your State Constitution/Bill of Rights. So for State prosecutions, you have your rights protected via said clause in your individual State constitution.

Go read your constitution, you will find all the Bill of Rights (1791, amendments 1-10) located in your state constitution text or your state Bill of Rights.

But I'm more interested in your interpritation.

Now, my understanding of the 2nd amendment here below:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

This is the right of security of a free state, a right to bear arms against the state. I know the federalist papers state that the bill of rights was not intended for the people, but the government, but they also mention the 4 amendments that were for the people. This is one of them.

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by mrbarber
You are nuts. The United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Niether the US Congress nor the individual states may pass any law in violation. That's why the Constitution and each amendment must be ratified by the states prior to implementation. Rights not granted to the people by the Constitution are left to the states. You have no idea what you are talking about so I figure you must be in State Government in either California or Illinois.

I am nuts?

You lack a complete and correct understanding of the Constitution. Do your research, buddy.

The Bill of Rights is a list of rights the Federal Government can't trample on. The Federal Government can't create laws which abridge your freedom of speech ("Congress shall pass no law..), the Federal Government can't disarm you, the Federal Government can't place troops in your home, the Federal Government can't unreasonably search and seize your possessions....and so on and so forth.

"The New York State Bill of Rights is a list of rights the State of New York can't trample on. The Texas Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of Texas can't trample on. The California Bill of Rights is the list of rights the State of California can't trample on.

The Federal Bill of Rights (to the Federal Constitution) have nothing to do with States trampling on your rights. The minute your State amends its Constitution to take away your First Amendment right...it's legal. The same for the Federal Constitution.


Do your research, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

If what you are saying is true, then how could anyone ever even take such matters to the U.S. Supreme Court? Citizens would automatically lose every single time.

Originally posted by Bearack

Originally posted by Double Eights

Originally posted by BearackWhat about the 6th amendment? My understanding is that the state constition cannot (federal crime of course) supercede this bill. Is this correct?

The Sixth Amendment pertains to the Federal Government. For Federal prosecutions, the 6th is applicable.

Trial by jury (for State prosecutions) is guaranteed in your State Constitution/Bill of Rights. So for State prosecutions, you have your rights protected via said clause in your individual State constitution.

Go read your constitution, you will find all the Bill of Rights (1791, amendments 1-10) located in your state constitution text or your state Bill of Rights.

But I'm more interested in your interpritation.

Now, my understanding of the 2nd amendment here below:

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

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.

This is the right of security of a free state, a right to bear arms against the state. I know the federalist papers state that the bill of rights was not intended for the people, but the government, but they also mention the 4 amendments that were for the people. This is one of them.

The Second Amendment states that the Federal Government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms. Various articles in State constitutions state that the individual State government cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms (except a few constitutions who put limits on your right to keep and bear arms)

Example of State Constitutions and their gun amendments.

Article I, Section 16 of the Maine Constitution states that the State of Maine cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

Bill of Rights, Section 4 of the Kansas Constitution states that the State of Kansas cannot infringe your right to keep and bear arms.

So on, and so forth.

Originally posted by maybereal11

The guns rights movement has crossed into sillyness...at least on ATS...and I own guns.

So by your definition of "infringe" or "restrict" the developmentally disabled should be able to own guns? Children? Convicted criminals? Those folks with Psychological disorders?

For that matter...."bare arms" does that include rocket luanchers?

Why should convicted criminals not be allowed to own guns? Did the criminal not serve his or her time? So, because someone commits a crime 30 years ago, that someone is denied the right to protect him/herself for the rest of his/her life?

It's so easy to brand someone a criminal. All you have to do is sneak a bill through, which lawmakers do not even read, and anyone engaged in the activity is a criminal.

I think that constitutional rights should never be taken away from anyone. That includes the right to vote.

And why should someone who has a mental handicap not be allowed a gun? Just because someone may have ADD, for example, does not mean that someone couldn't effectively handle a firearm. Many people diagnosed with mental disorders may not be disturbed at all. It's too easy to label anyone with anything these days.

Children should be taught the proper way to use firearms. I knew how to handle a gun by the time I was 11/12 years old. Just because someone is of a certain age doesn't mean that someone cannot be a responsible gun owner. Constitutional rights should not depend upon a person's age.

Originally posted by Bearack
Honest question, so so Federal cannot infringe on the US constitition but the states can?

If that were the case, then cops can beat us until we answered their questions. We need not ever have a jury trial. I could go on with this...

Originally posted by MemoryShock

the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments."

Restricted is a much different term then "prohibited".

I certainly think that a citizens right to have the capacity to defend themselves and their homes does not translate into a free for all when it comes to gun ownership.

Seriously...there are very relevant reasons why ththe idea of restriction is a relevant topic. One cannot predict that all gun owners will demonstrate the responsibility necessary when keeping, storing and using a tool that has the potential to end life in a second.

I have known people that I wouldn't trust with a sharpened pencil much less a firearm...and in todays world of advanced technology it should be noted that the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarentee the right of an individual to harbor the capacity to defend oneself with force if needed...not to hold a firearm for the sake of it.

A very relevant context, in my opinion...

The point you seem to be missing is the last few words of the second amendment "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED"
The actual act of "restricting" gun ownership is an infringment on second amendment rights. I agree that not everyone should own guns,just as I believe stupid people shouldn't breed,or be allowed to run banks/investment firms. Regulation is one thing,restriction is quite another!
Judges are officers of the court and sworn to uphold the law. I do not believe it is their place to rewrite laws on a whim,or to alienate the peoples rights.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by Bearack
Honest question, so so Federal cannot infringe on the US constitition but the states can?

If that were the case, then cops can beat us until we answered their questions. We need not ever have a jury trial. I could go on with this...

Ugh. Seriously guys, learn to read. Please, I am sick of explaining it.

The Federal Constitution and the Federal Bill of Rights (you know, the # you cling onto as if it were your child) is NOT applicable to the States. Each and EVERY State has their OWN Bill of Rights and their OWN Constitution....each of which outlines your rights JUST LIKE the FEDERAL Constitution.

You have a right to trial by jury, protected by BOTH your STATE and the FEDERAL Governments.

You have a right to keep and bear arms, protected by BOTH your STATE and the FEDERAL Governments.

You have a right to freedom of speech, protected by BOTH Your STATE and the FEDERAL Governments.

Do you think the Federal Constitution just popped out of no where? That the founders just made it all up as they went?

Absolutely not! Everything you see in the FEDERAL Constitution is located in the STATE Constitutions. Learn to #ing read.

You aren't going to be beaten, and you aren't going to miss out on your trial by jury...both of those rights are protected in your individual State Constitution/Bill of rights. How do you not understand this yet?

I'm done, you people are practically brain dead.

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
If what you are saying is true, then how could anyone ever even take such matters to the U.S. Supreme Court? Citizens would automatically lose every single time.

Give me an example of "such matters." What would you want to take to the Supreme Court?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by Double Eights]

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by maybereal11

The guns rights movement has crossed into sillyness...at least on ATS...and I own guns.

So by your definition of "infringe" or "restrict" the developmentally disabled should be able to own guns? Children? Convicted criminals? Those folks with Psychological disorders?

For that matter...."bare arms" does that include rocket luanchers?

And why should someone who has a mental handicap not be allowed a gun? Just because someone may have ADD, for example, does not mean that someone couldn't effectively handle a firearm. Many people diagnosed with mental disorders may not be disturbed at all. It's too easy to label anyone with anything these days.

Just because someone is of a certain age doesn't mean that someone cannot be a responsible gun owner. Constitutional rights should not depend upon a person's age.

And the insanity continues....

So..According to the constituion in your view someone diagnosed with let's say Paranoid Schitzophrenia with violent manifestations should be entitled to purchase and own firearms?

And..Children? Really? They should be allowed to buy guns?

what is wrong with you people? Seriously...

My question about the 2nd amendment itself is regarding the term "well regulated militia".....

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view.
www.guncite.com...

Isn't the wording specific enough that they could legally take away our individual rights to bear arms, unless we are part of an organized militia of the state?

reply to post by ravenshadow13


I am not sure if this is the correct format to post a reply, so Admins,
if I did wrong I'm sure you'll let me know and I won't do it again.

In response to ravenshadow's silly statements:

When you say "humans are violent", speak for yourself. You have NO right to speak for me.
Also, when you say that you don't think people should have guns I assume you mean except
the police and military and rock stars? I don't THINK so! Battling out with knives? That's
butchery instead of a quick kill. How many cuts, slashes, stabs, and slicing does it sometimes
take for the victim to die? "She/he was stabbed 50 times...", etc. as reported by the MSM. You
might survive a couple of shots but being stabbed into oblivion, I don't think so. And again
you say "People never complain about how violent we are", just speak for yourself. Yes, I
agree when you say that violence is an everyday thing, but Yoo HOO!, that's why we need guns,
isn't it? BTW, how many people a killed by knives, sticks, automobiles, airplanes, choo choos,
electricity, etc.? So we should outlaw all those things too, I guess. You don't make much sense, sorry Charlie.

Originally posted by maybereal11

Originally posted by Jessicamsa

Originally posted by maybereal11

The guns rights movement has crossed into sillyness...at least on ATS...and I own guns.

So by your definition of "infringe" or "restrict" the developmentally disabled should be able to own guns? Children? Convicted criminals? Those folks with Psychological disorders?

For that matter...."bare arms" does that include rocket luanchers?

And why should someone who has a mental handicap not be allowed a gun? Just because someone may have ADD, for example, does not mean that someone couldn't effectively handle a firearm. Many people diagnosed with mental disorders may not be disturbed at all. It's too easy to label anyone with anything these days.

Just because someone is of a certain age doesn't mean that someone cannot be a responsible gun owner. Constitutional rights should not depend upon a person's age.

And the insanity continues....

So..According to the constituion in your view someone diagnosed with let's say Paranoid Schitzophrenia with violent manifestations should be entitled to purchase and own firearms?

And..Children? Really? They should be allowed to buy guns?

what is wrong with you people? Seriously...

Someone with paranoid schitzophrenia should be locked up in the first place, not out on the streets.

What's wrong about a child having a gun so long as he/she is educated in its usage. I had a gun as a child and I didn't shoot anyone.

What's wrong with you? You are so paranoid that someone might shoot you that you take this so personally. You want to demonize half the population because you are so terrified that someone is going to shoot you.

Not everyone who has a mental disorder turns violent. And not everyone who is labeled with a mental disorder actually has one either. Most of the kids on ADD/ADHD meds are probably just ordinary kids who were bored out of their minds by the garbage public schools have them repeat day after day, year after year.

reply to post by Double Eights


I apologize for my arrogance and my rudeness. You are correct in your statements concerning the application of the US Bill of Rights. I deserve an electronic punch in the mouth!! I understand what you are now saying. I do, however, question whether a State could or would be allowed to amend their Constitution to repeal the equivalent of the 2nd amendment under the due process and property rights provisions.

Thinking about it further, would it be possible for an individual State to repeal any of its Bill of Rights if doing so infringed upon our rights under the Federal Bill of Rights?

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mrbarber]

[edit on 29-5-2009 by mrbarber]

Originally posted by Valaroga
reply to post by ravenshadow13

 

I am not sure if this is the correct format to post a reply, so Admins,
if I did wrong I'm sure you'll let me know and I won't do it again.

In response to ravenshadow's silly statements:

When you say "humans are violent", speak for yourself. You have NO right to speak for me.
Also, when you say that you don't think people should have guns I assume you mean except
the police and military and rock stars? I don't THINK so! Battling out with knives? That's
butchery instead of a quick kill. How many cuts, slashes, stabs, and slicing does it sometimes
take for the victim to die? "She/he was stabbed 50 times...", etc. as reported by the MSM. You
might survive a couple of shots but being stabbed into oblivion, I don't think so. And again
you say "People never complain about how violent we are", just speak for yourself. Yes, I
agree when you say that violence is an everyday thing, but Yoo HOO!, that's why we need guns,
isn't it? BTW, how many people a killed by knives, sticks, automobiles, airplanes, choo choos,
electricity, etc.? So we should outlaw all those things too, I guess. You don't make much sense, sorry Charlie.

Nice post.

I think if this person would have used their brain before they used their keyboard they would have realized that if "humans are violent" as he or she mistakenly believes, then why would not owning a gun stop that violent behavior? A gun is a thing it cannot be violent or benevolent. So if you take away the gun, they do exactly what you said, they go to the kitchen and get a knife. The only problem would be the guy who had the gun to stop people like this from killing them would be less able to do so and this especially holds true for a woman as she would most likely not have the strength to fight off an attacker with a knife as well as her male counterpart could.