| Re: the 2nd amendment conflicts with article 1 sec.10 clause 1 of the costitiution THere is a guy who surfs the web using several handles including "tim trammel" and "jimmy the one" who claims that Revolutionary area philosopher Rawles claimed that the RKBA was a subordinate clause to the first thus you have to be in the militia. Some also claim that various parts of the main body of the USSC allows the government to regulate arms. THis is false and the "state right" interpretation of the second amendment is not even taken seriously by legal scholars these days. Unfortunately, starting with a Supreme Court of Kansas ruling at the start of the century. several courts have wrongly interpreted the second and that is why the state right error continues
Here are some points
1) IF the second amendment only applies to those in a regular militia like the national guard, then the natural rights of all other citizens is recognized by the NINTH AMENDMENT
2) The commerce clause is used to justify federal gun control-the speciousness of that needs no explanation and conflicts with either the second or the Ninth
3) the national guard is a federal actor with the stroke of the President's pen. ONly a complete moron would claim that the second amendment-as part of the BOR empowers the federal government
4) THe odious Lautenberg amendment disbarred-retroactively, state troopers and guardsmen who had been convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor-sometimes years before the LA was enacted. IF THE right was a state right, a federal law could not disarm a state militiaman
5) in the 1870's the Cruikshank case held that the Second amendment did NOT CREATE A Right TO KBA. THIS IS TRUE. IT ONLY RECOGNIZES a preexisting right. STATIST courts found that since it didn't create a right none existed. THIS IS THE BASIS FOR ALL THE ANTI INDIVIDUAL RIGHT JURISPRUDENCE-pathetic in its reasoning
6) gun hating judges know that the second and/or ninth and tenth amendments preclude federal gun control so they ignore it. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE CONVINCING ARGUMENT made on the constitution for gun control GUn hating shills like Jimmy the One (a paid troll for the VPC) or Brady Consigliere Dennis Hennigan always couch their arguments as follows
a) bad precedent based on a clearly false reading of Cruikshank or b) guns are bad, screw the intent of the constitution and c) we have to pretend the second amendment says what we want it to say or people will have guns and kill everyone
there is no area of constitutional law where one side is more dishonest than second amendment issues and the Anti Rights Coalition and their paid shills (ARC)
__________________ SUPPORT OUR SOLDIERS |