|
Real0ne -> RE: 2nd amendment (7/22/2012 10:10:44 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: OttersSwim
quote:
ORIGINAL: stellauk
I see, so walking round anticipating that (1) you are going to be the victim of a crime and (2) the local police/law enforcement agency is going to let you down justifies your belief that you should have the right to bear arms?
Okay. Gotcha.
No actually our Constitution and the intent behind it give Americans the belief that they have the right to bear arms.
more tyrannist backward thinking,its the way they teach it, for a reason. money, power, theirs.
Its a "PRIMARY" right that cannot be taken away by any "legitimate" government!
you get NO RIGHTS FROM ANY CONSTITUTION!
The constitution is a declaration of rights by the prerogative of the individuals of the communities known as people. (at least that is the way the lip service goes, but we have thugs with guns that have over run it long time ago to extort money from the people in the name of gubafia "troughers").
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS: A Reply
By Charles L. Cantrell
Reprinted with permission of: Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, the official publication of the State Bar of Wisconsin.
Pre-Revolutionary Development
There exists a wealth of common law and colonial history that indicates that both Englishmen and pre-Revolutionary colonists possessed that individual right to keep and bear arms. It is well known that the founding fathers of this nation recognized Sir William Blackstone as an authority of the common law. Therefore, it should be highly probative of the founding fathers' understanding of an individual's rights to review a portion of Blackstone's authoritative treatise of the common law.
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject...is that of having arms for the defense, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which...is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.1
Blackstone termed this as an "auxiliary" right because it was one of the subordinate rights which were to guarantee the existence and enjoyment of the primary rights of personal security, personal liberty and private property.2 Thus at common law, the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right-not merely for its own sake-but recognized as a natural and vital instrument for defense and self-protection. It constituted the final barrier from oppression in any form, private or governmental.3
The British did not extend the right to bear arms to their subjects in America. Of course the colonists were deprived of many other common law rights, but these other deprivations were made all the easier by disarming the colonists and preventing the establishment of the militia.4
Just like the agenda of so many on this site
It was this series of well-known outrages which led to the following declaration of the First Continental Congress:
Resolved: that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers (not by fucking citizens in as it is today!) of the vicinage, according to the course of that law.5
It seems rather clear that the individual's right to keep and bear arms was part of the common law of England, and more importantly, the founding fathers appreciated this fact and collectively demonstrated that they were entitled to all of the common law rights. Therefore, the First Continental Congress was of the opinion that the colonists were imbued with the natural and lawful right of their English peers--to keep and bear arms.
In addition to the common law right, the state constitutions written during the Revolutionary War period contained an explicit right to bear arms.
The Unorganized Militia
From the above quoted portions of the state constitutions, [omiited in this post] it may appear that the colonists jealously reserved the right to keep and bear arms, but that there was a difference of opinion whether the right was solely for the common defense or included the right of self-preservation.
Taking into account the common law of England and its explicit right to self-defense and preservation, a persuasive argument could be made that the total sum of interpretive data would favor an understanding on all the founders' parts that the right to defend one's self was a natural right that required no further exposition.
Most arguments against an individual's right to keep and bear arms center on the wording of the Second Amendment that makes specific reference to a "...well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."10 Opponents maintain that this wording shows an intent to limit any right to bear arms because the same is expressly dependent upon and limited by the qualifying phrase regarding the Militia. Taking it one step further, they state that the modern-day National Guard fulfills this function, and therefore there is no modern day right."
The distinction between the organized and the unorganized militias is usually the crucial fact that most people overlook. To understand the difference between the organized and unorganized militias, one need only to look at the express wording of the Constitution. Congress has the express power to "provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part or them as may be employed in the Service of the United States..."12 That "part" is the organized militia. The unorganized or reserve militia now statutorily consists of the following:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and...under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.13
The Unorganized Militia
From the above quoted portions of the state constitutions, it may appear that the colonists jealously reserved the right to keep and bear arms, but that there was a difference of opinion whether the right was solely for the common defense or included the right of self-preservation.
In other words because the state does not acknowledge a right that you claim does NOT mean that you do not have the right legitimately! sneeky wabbits forget to tell you the details! That argument regards "state" acknowledgment....not existence There are other circumstances that define that)
This modern statutory scheme outlining the unorganized militia closely follows the historical format recognized by many of the founding father. It was a distrust of a standing general governmental army that caused Hamilton to write:
When will the time arrive that the federal government can raise and maintain an army capable of erecting a despotism over the great body of the people of an immense empire...14
The fear of a standing army was viewed as the possible means for the federal government to encroach upon the States and people. On the one hand, there was some protection offered by the organized militia against a despotic federal government and its army. However, Hamilton clearly pointed out that the organized militia must be under the central government's command for it to be an effective military unit. Again as in the Constitution, reference is made to only a "part" (organized) of the militia:
Thus it is clear that the "people at large" constituted the unorganized militia, and they were to serve as an integral check on possible despotism.
By construing "people" to mean only those qualified to do so the right to bear arms would, in present times, accrue to all citizens of the United States not under some legal disability.
The case law that has been discussed is of very little precedential value in attempting to derive a constitutional norm for interpreting the Second Amendment. When a proper case reaches the Supreme Court there will be a substantial body of supportive evidence that favors the recognition of an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Until that time, one should be aware that our valuable freedom is based upon more solid constitutional dogma than the "right to revolt."
(3 pages of stare decis omitted)
welcome to the bar, while its a fairly good write up there is a reason that so many assholes come out here and constantly cite "CITIZENS" as the only qualified people for anything with regard to the gubafia.
Its because the BAR flies make their money from those construed as citizens and omit that FACT that "inhabitants" have law outside their closed door "business" called the courts of the US and States.
Who or what ACT authorized the BAR to operate in US courts?
|
|
|
|
