9th Circuit Judge Finds no Individual 2nd Ammendment Right to Bear Arms

[oracle]

He's baaaaaack!

You'd think after the way he humiliated himself with his ruling against the Pledge of Allegiance that he would have taken the time to read the Constitution.

It's time for this SOB to retire.

<center>OPINION</center>
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge:

In 1999, the State of California enacted amendments to its gun control laws that significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of the semiautomatic weapons popularly known as "assault weapons." Plaintiffs, California residents who either own assault weapons, seek to acquire such weapons, or both, brought this challenge to the gun control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and a host of other constitutional provisions. The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims. Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms, we affirm the dismissal of all claims brought pursuant to that constitutional provision. As to the Equal Protection claims, we conclude that there is no constitutional infirmity in the statute's provisions regarding active peace officers. We find, however, no rational basis for the establishment of a statutory exception with respect to retired peace officers, and hold that the retired officers' exception fails even the most deferential level of scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, we conclude that each of the three additional constitutional claims asserted by plaintiffs on appeal is without merit.


Read the complete rantings of a senile old clown here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/661116A4ECB1A7BE88256C8600544DCB/$file/0115098.pdf?openelement).

[Maggie_T]

This senile clown validates a bumper sticker I read in the Comedy Froum: "Some people are alive only because it is illegal to shoot them."

[rbisrb2]

Well, finally the SCOTUS is going to have to rule on the 2nd, it is about time. They are now going to have to reinvent the constitution or they are going to have to acknoledge that the people have a right to defend themselves from a tyranical government.

[Chris]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Because the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms,

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's true, then why didn't the first Congress pass a law banning people from owning all those guns they had and confiscate them? http://freeconservatives.com/ubbthreads/images/icons/icon19.gif

[Maggie_T]

Excellent point, Chris.

[DesertFox]

This senile dipstick needs to just hang a sign out: "I hate Amerika!"

[Timberwolf]

The following is very long and was written by J. Neil Schulman. I hope it enlightens some.

The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of Gun Week, and also appears under the title "The Text of The Second Amendment" in The Journal on Firearms and Public Policy, Summer 1992, Volume 4, Number 1.

The Unabridged Second Amendment

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers - who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style:

The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter on July 26, 1991:
I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

The text of the Second Amendment is, "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."

The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary.

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]
[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]
[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]
[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]
[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

[Schulman:] As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] (1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms - all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?

I was looking at the "View" section of the LA Times from December 18, 1991 - an article on James Michener which my ex-wife Kate had saved for me to read - when the beginning of Jack Smith's column caught my eye: "Roy Copperud had no sooner died the other day than I had occasion to consult his excellent book, 'American Usage and Style: The Consensus.'"

Thus I learned of the death of Roy Copperud, the retired USC professor whom I had commissioned to do a grammatical analysis of the Second Amendment. It seems to have been one of the last projects he worked on. It is certainly one of the most important.

Roy Copperud told me afterwards that he, personally, favored gun control, but his analysis of the Second Amendment made clear that its protections of the right of the people to keep and bear arms were unaffected by its reference to militia. This sort of intellectual and professional honesty is sorely lacking in public discourse today.
In my several letters and phone conversations with Professor Copperud, I found him to be a gentleman of the old school.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now will someone please tell this mental midget to STFU and step down from the bench before he has an accident??

[Venus]

Timber, that was stellar. Thanks for sharing.

Your post takes the cake for 'post of the week'.

[Rhino]

Hey Timber?

Got a link to that? I'd like to have it in the original format if possible.

[Warlady]

Here's the link Rhino (http://www.saf.org/journal/4_Schulman.html)

[Pennville_Bill]

Timberwolf, et. al.

Inaddition to N. Schulman's interview it Roy Copperund, he also interviewed A. Brocki, a respected English grammarian. You may find this as equally as interesting as the Copperund treatise.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman 's book Stopping Power,
Pulpless.com, 1999, pp151-152. (The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman.)

" I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the
Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught
Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.......

I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence:

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway.

"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.

"Being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying
"electorate."

The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."

"Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying
the verb phrase "shall be infringed."

"To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "right."

I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.

Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....

He said, "NO."

I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full:

"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."
.....I asked, "is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?'

He said, "yes."

I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.

He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years.

He said "No."

I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."

He said, "No." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.

I asked him again to make sure:

SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"

BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."

SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"

BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."

I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on
the opinion, and be quoted on this.

He said, "Yes."

At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. A,
gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991

[/ QUOTE ]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon119.gif

[**DONOTDELETE**]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
"In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things.
1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.
2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.
3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period. They didn't. They talked about the rights of the People." George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12 yymmdd

[/ QUOTE ]

[Radical-Conservative]

This is no surprise coming from the 9th
Reinhardt must've done too much LSD in the Sixties it cooked his brain

[TheCollective]

This court continues to ignore the constitution. No big suprise here.

[Timberwolf]

Thanks for the assist, WL

[TheIrishman]

California; The land of Fruits and Nuts..

This idiot has no idea that "militia" means each and every able man.

Actually, he knows. He has another agenda and SHOULD be removed. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon122.gif

[TheRealLobo]

"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"

Someone (I disremember who) once interpreted it as the 'right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' is 'necessary to the security of a free state' because those bearing arms 'well-regulate' the Militia.

Essentially, the threat of armed citizens keep the militia in line.

I like it.

[MaximumSam]

Well, it seems like a perfectly reasonable opinion to me. I had never seen that quote by former justice Burger.

[Maggie_T]

Timberwolf and Penn Bill, thank you for the posts. I have bookmarked this thread for further reference. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Pennville_Bill]

You're welcome.

[Venus]

Irish, the Ninth Circuit covers 9 western states and 2 territories, not just California. Reinhardt was originally from NY. We can't help it that he decided to move here nor that Carter appointed him.

[DesertFox]

And there's that damn Carter again. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon130.gif

[Radical-Conservative]

You could deport him preferably to Mars

[Venus]

"You could deport him preferably to Mars"

That's a little too close to home for me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon124.gifThat "senile old clown" may have enough sympathizers on the High Court to do in the 2nd Amendment altogether. Anyway, I love it how the same people can read into certain Amendments and find a right to abortion, sodomy, public sex clubs, etc., but yet not even find any right to bear arms in an Amendment that says just that. To them, the 2nd Amendment is the "unwanted" Amendment, as it does not fit nicely into their political plan. It's hypocritical. Gun ownership is a big obstacle to the formation of a tyrannical government.
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon124.gif

[Rhino]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
quote from sear;






"In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things:

1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.

2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.

3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period. They didn't. They talked about the rights of the People."

George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12

[/ QUOTE ]
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
response from Sam;





Well, it seems like a perfectly reasonable opinion to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course it sounds reasonable to you. The constitution, the documented intentions of the founding fathers, historical fact, and plain old common sense haven't mattered to you before, so why should they start to now?

[MaximumSam]

Of course it sounds reasonable to you. The constitution, the documented intentions of the founding fathers, historical fact, and plain old common sense haven't mattered to you before, so why should they start to now?

If you had read the opinion, you would know it dealt with a lot if historical fact and intention.

[Radical-Conservative]

Holy Moly I agree with carl on sumpthin'

[HarvickFan29]

"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."

The second Amendment states unequivocally, &amp;#8220;The Right Of The People&amp;#8221;.

If the Founders had meant for it to only cover &amp;#8220;Well Regulated State&amp;#8217;s Militias&amp;#8221;, as the "Marxist Collectivists" argue, then it would have said &amp;#8220;The Right Of The State&amp;#8217;s Militias&amp;#8221;.

The Constitution is written in plain English utilizing words that hold the same meanings today as they did the day they were written, there is nothing in it that needs "interpretation". The Judge's responsibility is to Apply the Constitution to the law, not to interpret the Constitution to imply a meaning that suites the Law and the judge's political agenda.

Good post, Carl. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[MaximumSam]

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."

The second Amendment states unequivocally, “The Right Of The People”.

If the Founders had meant for it to only cover “Well Regulated State’s Militias”, as the "Marxist Collectivists" argue, then it would have said “The Right Of The State’s Militias”.

The Constitution is written in plain English utilizing words that hold the same meanings today as they did the day they were written, there is nothing in it that needs "interpretation". The Judge's responsibility is to Apply the Constitution to the law, not to interpret the Constitution to imply a meaning that suites the Law and the judge's political agenda.

Ah, if only it were that simple. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, then why can't I buy machine guns and grenades? The right to keep and bear arms can be infringed, so the Courts must decide how much and for what reasons. Also, it must decide if the States have more ability to infringe than the feds.

[HarvickFan29]

Ah, if only it were that simple. If the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, then why can't I buy machine guns and grenades?

It has nothing to do with simplicity. There is nothing in Carl's post that is untrue. I agree with his interpretation of the 2nd.

All of our rights are limited to a certain degree just as yelling fire in a crowded building is a limit on the Amendment 1. With rights come resposnibility (not mob rule) so of course our rights will naturally be limited to live in a civil world with civil and reasonable social discourse.

BTW, machine guns and grenades were not around at the time the 2nd was written.

[MaximumSam]

Well, that's exactly my point. All of our rights are limited. Therefore, the Courts decide how they are limited and to what degree. You cannot simply say that since the 2nd Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, that the government cannot infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

[DeclinetoState]

Sam, is this you? Even if it isn't you, do you agree with acerbic?

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
acerbic (2991 posts)
Dec-07-02, 02:27 PM (ET)
Mathematics of gun registration and confiscation
Gun nuts frequently claim that without registration banning and confiscating all guns is totally or almost impossible and if they are registered, banning and confiscating them all is easy and inevitable. So registration makes confiscation infinitely easier.
Considering that about half of U.S. households have guns, with registration the jackbooted thugs would have to go to X number of homes to find all guns and without registration that number would be X * 2.

Therefore, according to gun nut math, infinity = 2.



[/ QUOTE ] <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID32/1347.html" target="_blank">

Link to DU source.</a> (Sorry if posting this violates anyone's rights or FC policies.)

[Timberwolf]

Magster...you're very welcome.

Bill, my thanks to you also...that's #2 that I've saved to disk!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif

[MaximumSam]

Mathematics of gun registration and confiscation
Gun nuts frequently claim that without registration banning and confiscating all guns is totally or almost impossible and if they are registered, banning and confiscating them all is easy and inevitable. So registration makes confiscation infinitely easier.
Considering that about half of U.S. households have guns, with registration the jackbooted thugs would have to go to X number of homes to find all guns and without registration that number would be X * 2.

Therefore, according to gun nut math, infinity = 2.

No, it's not me, and no I don't totally agree. I suppose registration would make confiscation easier, but it still wouldn't be easy, and I wouldn't support confiscation in the first place.

[Pennville_Bill]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms


REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION


of the

UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS

Second Session

February 1982
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - ------- - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -


The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms therefore, is a right of the
individual citizen to privately possess and carry in a peaceful manner firearms
and similar arms. Such an "individual rights" interpretation is in full accord
with the history of the right to keep and bear arms, as previously discussed.
It is moreover in accord with contemporaneous statements and formulations
of the right by such founders of this nation as Thomas Jefferson and Samuel Adams, and accurately reflects the majority of the proposals which led up to the Bill of Rights itself.

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the
second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1982
88-618 0
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents,
U. S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

[DesertFox]

This toad can't find his ass with both hands. No wonder he can't find something as sophisticated as an individual right to bear arms in the 2d Amendment.

We need to enact a minimum IQ requirement for judgeship: The IQ should be at least as high as the nominee's age.

[Pennville_Bill]

That or send him to Ohio State so he can study w/ Maximum Spam..........

[MaximumSam]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the 2nd Amendment applies to California.

[DesertFox]

http://freeconservatives.com/smilies/joker.gif

[HarvickFan29]

Carl,

You're right that the Constitution doesn't grant the gov't or the courts the authority to limit our rights. However, those bodies do limit us. We are limited. Therefore, in that regard, you and Sam are both right.

[DesertFox]

So, Carl, do you support letting felons own firearms while they're still in prison? The Constitution doesn't say anybody can infringe their 2A right just because they're in Maximum Security.

[DesertFox]

Why, Carl?

Either it's in the Constitution or it isn't. That's what you've repeatedly said. But nothing in the Constitution justifies what you're now saying.

Which?

Rights are God given, you have said again and again. "All men [not just those who are out of jail] are endowed by their Creator ..." But now you're saying some people don't have them after all?

Which?

[DeclinetoState]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
People in prison do not have any rights, they only have the privileges we choose to grant to them.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about the Constitutional right not to suffer cruel and unusual punishment? Doesn't that right apply mainly if not exclusively to persons convicted of a crime?
/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon127.gif

[Pennville_Bill]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />


[/ QUOTE ] Bill, my thanks to you also...that's #2 that I've saved to disk!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome and check your PM.

As they say on the red green show:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
I'm pulling for ya........We're all in this together.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Pennville_Bill]

While I fully agree with the sentiment, unfortuanately incarcerated people do have rights. And many inmates often confuse courtesies and privileges for rights.

[Venus]

Yes, PB, I agree. We give prisoners an inch, then the lawyers for the prisoners' rights groups sue to take a mile.

Great posting on this thread, very informative and interesting.

[Venus]

Osammie declared:

"Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the 2nd Amendment applies to California."

ROFLOLOL!!! Osammie, you've finally outdone yourself. You are a hoot!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon133.gif

California: /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon62.gif

[DesertFox]

Just clarifying, Carl. Here's what you said:

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
There is absolutely no Constitutional reason why anyone can't own a machinegun or grenades, other than the fear that their ownership by us ordinary citizens would evoke in the government.
.

Now, show me in the Constitution where it delegates to the courts or the government the responsibility to infringe upon any God given Right that we innately possess for any reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Pretty absolute in those statements, Carl. No room for compromise. "There is absolutely no Constitutional reason why anyone can't own a machinegun." "show me in the Constitution where it delegates to the courts or the government the responsibility to infringe upon any God given Right that we innately possess for any reason."

But now it turns out that there ARE things the govt should do that are NOT explicitly stated in the Constitution, such as deny 2A rights to some people.

If that's what you're willing now to say, then you better back off your prior position. You can't have it both ways, bludgeoning people with Constitutionality when it suits you and ducking the logical consequence of your position when that suits you.

If you don't see that, my friend, then the obtuse one is you.

[DesertFox]

Carl, show me in the Constitution where it says that. Then show me in the Constitution where it says convicts aren't people.

[MaximumSam]

Carl,

Let me assign you a few equally obtuse tasks; Show me in the Constitution where murder, theft, rape or any other crime, other than Treason, is covered. Show me where it allows for prisons or punishment. Show me where the Federal Government has any Constitutional Legal Controlling Authority over any crimes committed within the jurisdiction of any state.

There was controversy over whether they should at all. I don't understand this. You can easily argue that the feds shouldn't have any control over any crime. (They have gotten some control, I think derived from the commerce clause). Basically, to regulate interstate commerce, they have to be able to make some things crimes - drugs, civil rights violations, etc.

But all this is meaningless. You are the one claiming the no one can restrict the type or amount of weapons you own, since it doesn't mention any exceptions in the Constitution. How can you then say that felons can't have guns, if the Constitution guarantees rights for all people, and doesn't mention an exception for criminals?

[DesertFox]

Carl, you just refuse to take responsibility for what you've said, don't you?

You have repeatedly shouted at us that the govt only has those powers the Constitution specifically grants it. Yet now you are granting the govt unconstitutional authority to deprive the incarcerated of their grenades and machineguns.

You have said in this very thread that anyone can own a machinegun or grenades. So if you're going to deny machineguns or grenades to the incarcerated, you can only be removing them from the designation "anyone," by which most of us understand you to mean "people."

The fact is that the govt DOES have legitimate powers NOT specifically granted it in the Constitution, including the legitimate power to deprive the incarcerated of their machineguns and grenades.

That is the whole point of this exchange.

[MaximumSam]

Carl,

Define Criminal Law.

Define Criminal.

Define Punishment.

The Constitution does none of this, so I guess there is no such thing as crime in America. So, how can there be felons or criminals of any sort?


Because we live in a system of dual federalism, and the states have power too (remember them?). The Constitution does not apply to the states except to where it says it does. Therefore, since you are correct in saying the Constitution doesn't mention felons or crimes, the states must pick up the slack and account for that.

[Venus]

Fox, this post isn't necessarily to you - I just hitched a ride to get the reply box opened.

Let we who understand the intent and purpose of the Second Amendment take joy in the probability that, since this decision came from the Ninth, and more particularly Reinhardt, the premier idiot on the federal bench suffering more reversals than any other judge by monumental proportion, the outrageousness of the decision will likely result in him getting his judicial ass judicially kicked still one more time.

[DesertFox]

Agreed.

[MaximumSam]

?

Carl, so do you think California has an unlimited ability to restrict guns, since the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to states?

[DesertFox]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
...they forfeited their right to possess machineguns or grenades when they were convicted of committing crimes

[/ QUOTE ]
Where does it say in the Constitution that they forfeited their rights to possess machineguns or grenades when they were convicted of committing crimes?

Show me, Carl.

[TheIrishman]

Kicked, right! If the libs can manage it somehow, they'll kick his ass into the supreme court. Terrible, disgusting thought, but true! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon44.gif

[TheIrishman]

The oath of office says for all that they will uphold the constitution, right? Or are judges subject to exemption?

This man is NOT upholding the constitution; he is doing all he can to usurp the constitution and should be impeached.

I agree with Carl whole heartedly!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon122.gif-

[DesertFox]

Okay, Carl, now I get it. You're not going to answer. A serious disconnect in your reasoning has been pointed out, but you feign incomprehension and duck the question by calling your challenger obtuse.

Good enough.

[BuckeyeMike]

The government does not deny 2A rights to convicted felons. The convicted felons THEMSELVES abrogate their 2A rights by their own actions and volition.

I'm not sure, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't there be civil and federal codes that maintain should a citizen bend, fold, or mutilate certain accepted "rules of society" that they would automatically forfeit specific rights and priveleges normally enjoyed by law abiding citizens?

You must also take into consideration the "rights" a citizen abrogates when he or she becomes a member of one of the Armed Forces. Should a convicted felon, a blight on society, have more rights than one of our Service personnel? Lord knows their quality of life is much better in many cases!