Texas Rep. Keffer Introduces 2nd Amendment Protection Bill

99 posts / 0 new

Bill prohibits enforcement of all federal gun laws infringing upon the right to bear arms

AUSTIN - Today, State Representative Jim Keffer proudly joint-authored a bill reaffirming and protecting each citizen's right to bear arms. The "Second Amendment Preservation Act" was filed in response to potential federal Executive Orders that would unconstitutionally restrict the right to bear arms.

The proposed legislation nullifies all federal acts in violation of the Second Amendment and prohibits the enforcement of any federal law or regulation that attempts to confiscate or ban any firearm, limits the size of a magazine or the amount of ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or imposes a tax or registration requirement on any firearm or ammunition.

"Texans believe in gun safety, responsible ownership, and we certainly stand against those who abuse such privileges," said State Representative Jim Keffer, "but we also stand firm that our right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by the federal government. In these trying times, we refer to our Constitution for guidance and there we confirm our natural right of self-preservation and self-defense."

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

Comments

Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Bill prohibits enforcement of all federal gun laws infringing upon the right to bear arms

AUSTIN - Today, State Representative Jim Keffer proudly joint-authored a bill reaffirming and protecting each citizen's right to bear arms. The "Second Amendment Preservation Act" was filed in response to potential federal Executive Orders that would unconstitutionally restrict the right to bear arms.

The proposed legislation nullifies all federal acts in violation of the Second Amendment and prohibits the enforcement of any federal law or regulation that attempts to confiscate or ban any firearm, limits the size of a magazine or the amount of ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or imposes a tax or registration requirement on any firearm or ammunition.

"Texans believe in gun safety, responsible ownership, and we certainly stand against those who abuse such privileges," said State Representative Jim Keffer, "but we also stand firm that our right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by the federal government. In these trying times, we refer to our Constitution for guidance and there we confirm our natural right of self-preservation and self-defense."

Did he just say that responsible gun ownership was a privilege and not a right? Could that be a Freudian slip?

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Amazing how far Texas has gone down the tubes from when I lived there in 73'...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Yea, and irresponsible ownership is a right. Doesn't matter.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote norske:Amazing how far Texas has gone down the tubes from when I lived there in 73'...

As good as Texas' economy has been doing and our legislators stand up against odictator thinking he is king and can rule by edict, i would say that we have been fairing a whole lot better than those states in moonbat land.

GOOD RIDDANCE!

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

Prisons are profitable and are a key part of TX economy. Of course it's funded by the government but they aren't government jobs. 50% of all prison rape charges came from TX.

Five of the 10 prisons with the highest rates of sexual abuse in the country are in Texas. That includes the first two, Estelle Unit and Clements Unit where Rodney Hulin, 17, was raped until he hanged himself.
douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Biden Confirms Support for Second Amendment, Says He Owns Two Shotguns

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 11:13 am
Quote praising some grandstanding Texas Gun Nut crackpot darlinedarline1:

Bill prohibits enforcement of all federal gun laws infringing upon the right to bear arms

AUSTIN - Today, State Representative Jim Keffer proudly joint-authored a bill reaffirming and protecting each citizen's right to bear arms. The "Second Amendment Preservation Act" was filed in response to potential federal Executive Orders that would unconstitutionally restrict the right to bear arms.

The proposed legislation nullifies all federal acts in violation of the Second Amendment and prohibits the enforcement of any federal law or regulation that attempts to confiscate or ban any firearm, limits the size of a magazine or the amount of ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or imposes a tax or registration requirement on any firearm or ammunition.

"Texans believe in gun safety, responsible ownership, and we certainly stand against those who abuse such privileges," said State Representative Jim Keffer, "but we also stand firm that our right to bear arms should not be infringed upon by the federal government. In these trying times, we refer to our Constitution for guidance and there we confirm our natural right of self-preservation and self-defense."

Is Texas full of far right crackpots? Aside from the fact that the Second was already hijacked by the Orwellian Right that fabricated from it a new individual right.... does this ring a bell?
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

It's from the very decision Gun Nuts so herald: Heller vs District Of Columbia

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=...

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Peepot, the 2nd amendment view you hold is bullshit. The vast majority of citzens, legislators and judges believe our rights to private firearms ownership is found in the 2nd. You have brought your ideation and interpretation of the 2nd and the Constitution up ad nauseum. The point is that it appears the Texas legislature is not going to abide by any unConstitutional or 2nd amendment rights tromping edicts that odictator comes up with to infringe on the rights of responsible, legal gun owners.

This is not about your effin ideation and interpretation of the 2nd. I am sure everyone on these boards knows YOUR opinion.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
The proposed legislation nullifies all federal acts in violation of the Second Amendment and prohibits the enforcement of any federal law or regulation that attempts to confiscate or ban any firearm, limits the size of a magazine or the amount of ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm, or imposes a tax or registration requirement on any firearm or ammunition.

Nullification? That old chestnut? Bring back John C. Calhoun!

I'm pretty sure that the Civil War settled the issue of nullification. Texas was on the wrong side of that battle, too.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm

What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's? Send in the drones? I love the anti-gun idiots idea that private law abiding citizens rights can be unConstitutionally infringed upon and any resistance should be met with armed violence. Otherwise, I ask again, just what in the hell are they going to do when Texans tell them to stick their unConstitutional regs up their moonbat asses?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

I don't think that lefties should be in this argument. Although, if there was ever a time for it, this is it. As long as we have a 2nd Amendment written and misrepresented as it is, it is a loser argument. It runs headlong into what people really want. They are perfectly OK with America's gun-deaths. Can't really fight them.

The task of navigating these issues is to span the gap between how things are and what I, or you, would do if you were the Emporer of America.

Personally, I would confiscate every gun in America. We don't allow children to have toys that are dangerous beyond their ability to manage responsibly. Same for guns. But, I am not the Emporer of America. We have only the established mechanism for defining public policy. It's working it's will. I'm just sitting back and watching it all happen.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's? Send in the drones? I love the anti-gun idiots idea that private law abiding citizens rights can be unConstitutionally infringed upon and any resistance should be met with armed violence. Otherwise, I ask again, just what in the hell are they going to do when Texans tell them to stick their unConstitutional regs up their moonbat asses?

Ask David Karesh what they'll do.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's?

That is for federal courts to decide.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Peepot, the 2nd amendment view you hold is bullshit. The vast majority of citzens, legislators and judges believe our rights to private firearms ownership is found in the 2nd.

If so Heller would not have been such a radical decision... that it protects a right to own guns OUTSIDE of a militia context. Was it written in 1808? No 2008. But then Scalia HAD to find this right in the Second because he, like most far Right judicial Neanderthals you adore are determined to destroy the Ninth... all because they so respect the Constitution.

By your "logic" such as it is, all our rights MUST be granted by the government. I'd prefer to know those not enumerated... like the right to marry, have kids, build a home, start a business, have a favorite color ARE protected by the Ninth. With your "logic" none of them are protected unless enumerated,,, which of course THEY ARE NOT. The notion the First Congress would place the individual right to own a gun outside a militia context as MORE important as the personal rights above is laughable. But then so are you.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's? Send in the drones? I love the anti-gun idiots idea that private law abiding citizens rights can be unConstitutionally infringed upon and any resistance should be met with armed violence. Otherwise, I ask again, just what in the hell are they going to do when Texans tell them to stick their unConstitutional regs up their moonbat asses?

Dar my dear, my point in my citing Heller was to show even Scalia believes IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL TO RESTRICT GUN OWNERSHIP in some cases. It's NOT an unlimited right.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Peepot, the 2nd amendment view you hold is bullshit. The vast majority of citzens, legislators and judges believe our rights to private firearms ownership is found in the 2nd. You have brought your ideation and interpretation of the 2nd and the Constitution up ad nauseum. The point is that it appears the Texas legislature is not going to abide by any unConstitutional or 2nd amendment rights tromping edicts that odictator comes up with to infringe on the rights of responsible, legal gun owners.

This is not about your effin ideation and interpretation of the 2nd. I am sure everyone on these boards knows YOUR opinion.

For the past 30 years or so, yes. It's funny that for the first 200 years of this country it wasn't even considered that the 2nd had anything to do with an individual right to own a gun. I guess all those stupid people from the birth of our nation all the way to about 1977 didn't notice it. Good thing we have all these new smart people to set us straight.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:As good as Texas' economy has been doing and our legislators stand up against odictator thinking he is king and can rule by edict, i would say that we have been fairing a whole lot better than those states in moonbat land.

GOOD RIDDANCE!

Despite your virulent spew you've yet to show us ONE thing, not one of those 23 executive orders, that makes Obama a "dictator". I've read them and there's nothing there that's unreasonable.

Ever care to prove your point?

Didn't think so.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

For the past 30 years or so, yes. It's funny that for the first 200 years of this country it wasn't even considered that the 2nd had anything to do with an individual right to own a gun. I guess all those stupid people from the birth of our nation all the way to about 1977 didn't notice it. Good thing we have all these new smart people to set us straight.

Ya, it is amusing that we don't see much support for the "insurrectionist" theory of the Second until the far right nuts took over the NRA. Before that the NRA was for gun control. Once the nuts took over the NRA began to fund "research" to "prove" the Second was not just a individual right outside the militia context, but that the Framers wanted an armed populace to be a counterweight to some theoretical tyrant who took over the federal government. While there are hints of this in Federalist 46, we never saw any laws enshrining this purpose for the well-regulated militias... or any legal mechanism how this could happen... let alone grant the right to insurrection to drunken yahoos in the hills of West Virginia who clearly are NOT in any well-regulated Militia... and there's only one: the state National Guards.

This NRA echo chamber has worked well the past 35 years or so in moving the debate to their terms. It reminds me of how Hitler also was able to systematically move public opinion.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

"Teaxas" will be the name of the independent republic run by the Tea Party.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm
Quote unable to spell her the name of her own state darlinedarline1@aol.com:

What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's?

You mean what should happen if Texas acts unconstitutionally against duly passed federal laws? So professor, you have heard of Article 6's supremacy clause right?

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.

This is a power granted to the federal government. So if Texas DOES pass a law with the following language

SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate;
Offences; Penalties.
(a) A person who is a Peace Officer, State Officer, or State
Employee commits an offense if the person, while acting under color
of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or
attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency
orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United
States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any
firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing
any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm,
taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the
registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.

Since Heller is clear any right under the Second is NOT unlimited, then would not Texas be operating OUTSIDE of the Constitution in defying any federal laws passed with other constitutional provisions in mind... such as preserving domestic tranquility?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB00553I.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Yea, and irresponsible ownership is a right. Doesn't matter.

Prove it. Of course in Teaxas (sic) the irresponsible are probably encouraged to own guns... to prevent the tyranny of any legislation against them.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Here's an ironic little news story about guns ‘Firearms instructor’ hired as school guard leaves handgun in student bathroom

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote miksilvr:

Biden Confirms Support for Second Amendment, Says He Owns Two Shotguns

Biden may not be the brightest bulb on the tree.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/17/biden-insists-white-hous...

And then:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/bidens-claim-brush-gun-m...

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Probably Rep. Keffer should have introduced a Constitutional Amendment repealing the "well regulated militia" clause...and the whole debate would be mute. We could kill one another off to our heart's content.

Mercy killings for the 45,000 a year who die from lack of health care might be in order. He could include that in his Amendment. Use them for target practice.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Probably Rep. Keffer should have introduced a Constitutional Amendment repealing the "well regulated militia" clause...and the whole debate would be mute.

It makes no difference. The right wing Neanderthals on the Supreme Court already ruled the militia clause was irrelevant to their newly discovered individual right to self protection.

What gun nuts like Keffer should be proposing is an amendment the Constitution to abolish the Supreme Court for ruling the Second does NOT convey an unlimited individual right. As we saw in this thread TRUE gun nut psychos are so extreme they believe even gun ownership by the irresponsible is protected by the Second.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote Redwing:
Quote miksilvr:

Biden Confirms Support for Second Amendment, Says He Owns Two Shotguns

Biden may not be the brightest bulb on the tree.

True. He should not buy into the Gun Nut's Orwellian interpretation that the Second extends/protects an individual right to own a firearm outside a militia.

He should say he's NOT in any well-regulated militia. His rights are protected by the Ninth as was his right to marry, have kids, run for office... etc.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

they put thee second amendment in place so that the individuals in an area could defend the state/country until help could arrive even if they were defending it from the federal government.

the 9th and 10th amendments were added so that the federal government could not take any freedoms or infringe on the freedoms you have as a human being. these two amendments have been ignored since wilson and than really thrown out during FDR.

once you give up one part of the constitution it is a diwn hill slide from there. every major government sponsored genocide started with the local people being disarmed for their own safety.

please excuse typos posted from phone.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 8:52 am

Rest assured the NRA is forming a well regulated set of standards in each state that it's members will all be comissioned into, forming a Militia, thus keeping our local bomb carrying cat happy.

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote Redwing:

Rest assured the NRA is forming a well regulated set of standards in each state that it's members will all be comissioned into, forming a Militia, thus keeping our local bomb carrying cat happy.

Who cares. It's not the constitutional militia.

Gun Nut extremists have done the American People a great disservice. By bastardizing the Second to create an individual right there they further undermined the concept of unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth.

You must be proud.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Bullshit, Pierpont, the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution to protect the God given rights of the INDIVIDUAL, period! It does not authorize or grant those rights but rather defines those rights that already exist. The Bill of Rights protects and guarantees those rights from infringement and restriction by a repressive and tyrannical government. This is one of the best articles I have read regarding the issue of the agenda of the gun grabbing left.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-909634

The 2nd is about the God given rights of individuals to keep and bear arms!

As the article concludes, I concur wholeheartedly!

" The Bill of Rights, Our Constitution is there to protect the rights of the individual and as an individual I can tell you with authority I will NOT live on my knees in a post Constitutional Monarchy where armed criminals roam freely and citizens are left to cower unarmed in attics"

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Bullshit, Pierpont, the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution to protect the God given rights of the INDIVIDUAL, period! It does not authorize or grant those rights but rather defines those rights that already exist. The Bill of Rights protects and guarantees those rights from infringement and restriction by a repressive and tyrannical government.

Gee Dar... tell me something I don't know. If anyone here most defends the Ninth, it's me. And why does it need defending? It's because idiots ON THE RIGHT... like Scalia, and Bork, are determined to strip us of all those unenumerated rights they don't want us to have. As Bork once said the Ninth is like an inkblot on the Constitution beneath which we'll never know the real intent. Now THAT'S bullshit. And pray tell, what the f**k difference does it make if the right to self-protection is covered by the Ninth? Do we need an enumerated right to fall in love, marry, have kids, build a home, etc????? OF COURSE NOT. Are you actually here telling us that the First Congress considered guns more important than those rights? Are you insane? Actually Gun Nuts probably DO think that.

The 2nd is about the God given rights of individuals to keep and bear arms!
God wants us to have guns. Now there's an amusing concept. S/he/it didn't care whether we had food and shelter... but man, that God wants us to be armed to the teeth. Which makes me wonder how troubled God was when humanity didn't have his precious guns for the first 10,000 years of civilization.

So your rights comes from a supernatural being no one can prove exists? And if there is no God then what Pickles? Never mind... I forgot that in Teaxas (sic) critical thinking is discouraged.

I'd rather think our rights come from merely being sentient humans. I certainly don't want to count on supernatural beings to grant me rights.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Rights damn sure don't come from government!. Call them Natural Rights then.

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Rights damn sure don't come from government!. Call them Natural Rights then.

Then Gun Nuts don't need to bastardize the Second, do they Einstein? But thanks for proving my point that when Gun Nuts bastardize the Second to create an individual right to self protection there... they further undermine the concept of Natural Rights most protected by the NINTH.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Rights damn sure don't come from government!. Call them Natural Rights then.

So you're saying that the Scalia's of the world are WRONG when they say our rights must be limited to those enumerated and broadly accepted historically? That any rights beyond that must be granted FROM THE GOVERNMENT through legislative action? This view assumes our Natural Rights are actually limited... that we do NOT exist in a state of freedom where we can do anything that does not harm others.

So your opinion about same sex marriage is what? If your claim is rights are NOT granted by government... then government never had any legitimate power to block such marriages. Right? Or are you one of those right wingers who DOES want to limit rights to just those you want people to have?

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I need to repost this since Dar seems determined to evade the core contradiction in her argument:

Quote Pierpont:
Quote unable to spell her the name of her own state darlinedarline1@aol.com:

What are they going to do if and when Teaxas refuses to recognize any unConstitutional guns laws or odictators unConstitutional EO's?

You mean what should happen if Texas acts unconstitutionally against duly passed federal laws? So professor, you have heard of Article 6's supremacy clause right?

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.

This is a power granted to the federal government. So if Texas DOES pass a law with the following language

SECTION 2. Chapter 46, Penal Code, is amended by adding
Section 46.16 to read as follows:
Sec. 46.16. Second Amendment Shall Remain Inviolate;
Offences; Penalties.
(a) A person who is a Peace Officer, State Officer, or State
Employee commits an offense if the person, while acting under color
of the person's office or employment, intentionally enforces or
attempts to enforce any acts, laws, executive orders, agency
orders, rules or regulations of any kind whatsoever of the United
States government relating to confiscating any firearm, banning any
firearm, limiting the size of a magazine for any firearm, imposing
any limit on the ammunition that may be purchased for any firearm,
taxing any firearm or ammunition therefore, or requiring the
registration of any firearm or ammunition therefore.

Since Heller is clear any right under the Second is NOT unlimited, then would not Texas be operating OUTSIDE of the Constitution in defying any federal laws passed with other constitutional provisions in mind... such as preserving domestic tranquility?

http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB00553I.htm

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia United States of America

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

There are Constitutionally-protected rights, quasi-protected rights, and unprotected rights, all of which might be deemed "natural rights" but they are not all treated the same way. The rights of a person in federal court are also different from the rights of a person in state courts, although there is a lot of overlap.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm

Wiki:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[1]

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

Your ad nauseum argument of the 9th flies out the window,

"A number of federal courts have found that the Ninth Amendment is a rule of judicial construction, or a guideline for interpretation, and not an independent source of constitutional rights (Mann v. Meachem, 929 F. Supp. 622 [N.D.N.Y. 1996]). These courts view the Ninth Amendment as an invitation to liberally interpret the express provisions of the Constitution. However, federal courts will not recognize constitutional rights claimed to derive solely from the Ninth Amendment (United States v. Vital Health Products, 786 F. Supp. 761 [E.D. Wis. 1992]). By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]).

After Griswold, federal courts were flooded with novel claims based on unenumerated rights. Almost without exception, these novel Ninth Amendment claims were rejected.

For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found no Ninth Amendment right to resist the draft (United States v. Uhl, 436 F.2d 773 [1970]). The Sixth Circuit Court ruled that there is no Ninth Amendment right to possess an unregistered submachine gun (United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 [1976]). The Fourth Circuit Court held that the Ninth Amendment does not guarantee the right to produce, distribute, or experiment with mind-altering drugs such as marijuana (United States v. Fry, 787 F.2d 903 [1986]). The Eighth Circuit Court denied a claim asserting that the Ninth Amendment guaranteed Americans the right to a radiation-free environment (Concerned Citizens of Nebraska v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 970 F.2d 421 [1992])."

By itself, one court held, the Ninth Amendment does not enunciate any substantive rights. Instead the amendment serves to protect other fundamental liberties that are implicit, though not mentioned, in the Bill of Rights (Rothner v. City of Chicago, 725 F. Supp. 945 [N.D. Ill. 1989]).

Get that yet, pierpot?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Your ad nauseum argument of the 9th flies out the window,

So as I suspected, you do NOT believe we have natural rights. They ARE granted by government... and if that government decides not to respect them... then they don't exist.

Why didn't you just say so.

Madison was correct that a Bill Of Rights was dangerous since those rights left unenumerated would soon be at risk.

BTW you're STILL evading the issue about Teaxas (sic). But what else is new.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Wiki:

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Blah blah... gee, you passed the Cut And Paste test.

However, you're IGNORING the part of Heller which I posted if not here then in other threads... that says this right IS NOT UNLIMITED... which means, like other rights, government CAN place limits on it consistent with its other constitutional duties.

Quote Heller:Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=...

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Pierpoint wrote:" However, you're IGNORING the part of Heller which I posted if not here then in other threads... that says this right IS NOT UNLIMITED... which means, like other rights, government CAN place limits on it consistent with its other constitutional duties"

poly replies: Then Heller is contradicting his own position. The Constitution says government may "not restrict" Everyone ought to be able to arm themselves with missles if they can afford it.

Just where does the Constitution give government authority to restrict Constitutional rights consistent with its other Constitutional duties? That's the same justification utilized to abolish habeus corpus, isn't it? What's the point in having rights if government can take them away...consistent with it's other Constitutional duties?

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote stuff:

There are Constitutionally-protected rights, quasi-protected rights, and unprotected rights, all of which might be deemed "natural rights" but they are not all treated the same way. The rights of a person in federal court are also different from the rights of a person in state courts, although there is a lot of overlap.

Ya one might think the protection of rights might be more advanced in the US as one of the first nations to adopt the concept of Natural Rights... at least for freemen. But the construction of the Ninth along with the Tenth originally just placed limits on federal power and states were still free to restrict rights and I suspect it's that which led to the restriction of those Natural Rights to more traditional ones. The 14th Amendment coming 80 years later did nothing to change this and I suspect the Ninth by now was relegated to irrelevancy. It would have been preferable if the Bill Of Rights was more all encompassing... or had a more definitive definition of right as did the Rights Of Man..

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

5. Law can only prohibit such actions as are hurtful to society. Nothing may be prevented which is not forbidden by law, and no one may be forced to do anything not provided for by law.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/rightsof.asp

So the question is... just because there's little caselaw... does this mean the Ninth can be neglected as the Right... as evidenced by Dar's post... and perhaps most Dems, want to do? Not if one believes nothing in the Constitution is without purpose.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

Certainly made for hilarious morning reading.

Point One. No need to mess with Texas when it is messing itself.

Point Two. Right to Rebellion not in the Constitution. Of course it isn't. It is supposed to prevent one.

Point Three. The hermeneutics of the Constitution seem to attract a lot of flies.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:

Bullshit, Pierpont, the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution to protect the God given rights of the INDIVIDUAL, period! It does not authorize or grant those rights but rather defines those rights that already exist. The Bill of Rights protects and guarantees those rights from infringement and restriction by a repressive and tyrannical government. This is one of the best articles I have read regarding the issue of the agenda of the gun grabbing left.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-909634

The 2nd is about the God given rights of individuals to keep and bear arms!

As the article concludes, I concur wholeheartedly!

" The Bill of Rights, Our Constitution is there to protect the rights of the individual and as an individual I can tell you with authority I will NOT live on my knees in a post Constitutional Monarchy where armed criminals roam freely and citizens are left to cower unarmed in attics"

I didn't know god was a gun nut. Guns weren't even invented when the bible was written. Charlton Heston said something like that and he played Moses, but even Reagan knew Heston wasn't really Moses or God.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote polycarp2:

Pierpoint wrote:" However, you're IGNORING the part of Heller which I posted if not here then in other threads... that says this right IS NOT UNLIMITED... which means, like other rights, government CAN place limits on it consistent with its other constitutional duties"

poly replies: Then Heller is contradicting his own position. The Constitution says government may "not restrict" Everyone ought to be able to arm themselves with missles if they can afford it.

Just where does the Constitution give government authority to restrict Constitutional rights consistent with its other Constitutional duties? That's the same justification utilized to abolish habeus corpus, isn't it? What's the point in having rights if government can take them away...consistent with it's other Constitutional duties?

To restrict rights for other reasons would be unconstitutional. ;-)

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote darlinedarline1@aol.com:As the article concludes, I concur wholeheartedly!

" The Bill of Rights, Our Constitution is there to protect the rights of the individual and as an individual I can tell you with authority I will NOT live on my knees in a post Constitutional Monarchy where armed criminals roam freely and citizens are left to cower unarmed in attics"

Ya ya, the Constitution also EMPOWERED a stronger federal government which has OTHER missions you might have heard of. If not, trying reading it sometimes.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Then Heller is contradicting his own position. The Constitution says government may "not restrict" Everyone ought to be able to arm themselves with missles if they can afford it.

The U.S. Supreme Court clearly stated in Heller that reasonable restrictions on the possession of weapons do not violate the Second Amendment.

Just where does the Constitution give government authority to restrict Constitutional rights consistent with its other Constitutional duties? That's the same justification utilized to abolish habeus corpus, isn't it? What's the point in having rights if government can take them away...consistent with it's other Constitutional duties?

The U.S. Supreme Court has always ruled that none of the rights in the Bill of Rights are absolute, that any right may be waived by the government when it has a compelling reason to do and if no less burdensome, alternative means exists to accomplish such reasons.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm

Here's another ironic headline about guns.

5 People Accidentally Shot at Gun Shows on First ‘Gun Appreciation Day’

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
But the construction of the Ninth along with the Tenth originally just placed limits on federal power and states were still free to restrict rights and I suspect it's that which led to the restriction of those Natural Rights to more traditional ones. The 14th Amendment coming 80 years later did nothing to change this and I suspect the Ninth by now was relegated to irrelevancy. It would have been preferable if the Bill Of Rights was more all encompassing... or had a more definitive definition of right as did the Rights Of Man..

First of all, none of the rights in the Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply to states. This did not change until the Gitlow v. New York ruling in 1925, in which the U.S. Supreme Court "selectively incorporated" First Amendment speech rights into the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Other rights would follow in subsequent rulings.

Second, the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment intended that it apply the Bill of Rights to the states, but this interpretation was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases.

So the question is... just because there's little caselaw... does this mean the Ninth can be neglected as the Right... as evidenced by Dar's post... and perhaps most Dems, want to do? Not if one believes nothing in the Constitution is without purpose.

The Ninth Amendment was a political compromise intended to secure the support of anti-Federalists for ratification, as was everything else in the Bill of Rights.

The U.S. Constitution is first and foremost a political document, and only secondly a legal document.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm

Currently Chatting

We Need to Stop Worshipping Cops

If you protest police brutality and you don’t protest police deaths, then you’re a hypocrite.

That’s what conservatives have been saying ever since two New York City cops were murdered Saturday in an apparent revenge attack for the killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner.

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system