It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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.
• conflict: go against, as of rules and laws; "He ran afoul of the law"; "This behavior conflicts with our rules"
• encroach: advance beyond the usual limit
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
Originally posted by Asktheanimals
First, can you provide examples of what you mean by the State's infringing on the people's right to bear arms?
Second, what limitations do you think would be proper under the second amendment? Example: no-one should own automatic weapons. etc.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
But doesn't going against the government (insurrection/mutiny/rebellion whatever) go against what the founding documents say?
They seem to be contradictory.
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.
I think that the ONLY limitation that should be placed on owning a gun of any kind is that the citizen attempting to attain one should not be a felon,
Thanks for sending me an e-mail expressing your opposition to SB 6396 that would limit the right to bear arms. I appreciate you taking time to contact me on this important issue.
Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states, "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired....". I fully support our Constitution and the right to bear arms.
Again, I appreciate you contacting me. Please let me know if I can be of additional service.
Tracey J. Eide
Senator Tracey J. Eide
Majority Floor Leader
30th Legislative District
Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding the Second Amendment. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
Allow me to begin by saying that I support the Second Amendment and believe that individuals have the right to own guns, whether it be for recreation or self-defense. With that said, I also support reasonable laws to ensure guns do not get in the hands of criminals or children. To this end I believe that this is an issue that is best monitored and controlled on the state and local level.
Preserving Second Amendment rights is very important to me. While I support preserving these rights for law-abiding citizens, I believe that we must make an effort to keep guns away from violent criminals, children, and the mentally ill, or in other words, people who do not have the right to possess a gun. However, our efforts to keep guns away from such people should never infringe on the rights of others to own a gun. Throughout my tenure in Congress I have voted accordingly.
Of interest to many parties engaged in Second Amendment issues, Congressman Bobby Rush introduced H.R. 45, the Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, on January 6, 2009. As you are aware, this legislation prohibits a person from possessing a handgun or various types of long firearms without a gun license issued by a state or the federal government. Additionally, this legislation places new restrictions and licensing requirements on the transfer and receipt of guns, and institutes new firearms reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Currently this legislation has been referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security in the House Judiciary Committee. Although I do not sit on this Subcommittee, and will not have an opportunity to vote on it unless it comes before the full House of Representatives, I have been monitoring H.R. 45 closely. I oppose this legislation and believe that any law that requires a license to own a firearm is a violation of a person's Second Amendment rights.
Again, thank you for contacting me in support of Second Amendment Rights. I look forward to continuing to advocate on behalf of the rights of the many gun owners in the 9th District and to ensure the federal firearms policy strikes an appropriate balance between liberty and safety that does not unduly infringe upon the rights of those who choose to lawfully own firearms.
Member of Congress
Thank you for your community service. As you know, judges are not permitted to take positions on issues that are likely to come before the court. However, I am providing a list of published cases that may assist you:
State v. Radan, 143 Wn.2d 323, 21 P.3d 255 (2001)
State v. Williams, 158 Wn.2d 904, 148 P.3d 993 (2006)
State v. Brown, 162 Wn.2d 422, 173 P.3d 245 (2007)
State v. Gregory, 158 Wn.2d 759, 147 P.3d 1201 (2006)
State v. Gurske, 155 Wn.2d 134, 118 P.3d 333 (2005)
State v. Schmidt, 143 Wn.2d 658, 23 P.3d 462 (2001)
State v. Walsh, 123 Wn.2d 741, 870 P.2d 974 (1994)
I hope the above cases will give you the background and answers you are seeking.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
The 2nd amendment doesn't give any rights to anyone.