Real0ne
Posts: 21189
Joined: 10/25/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DomKen
Once more Heller is the ruling that declared the 2nd an individual right withc ertain caveats contained in the ruling. It is the precedent. Everything in Heller applies to the states because of McDonald. Therefore I was right, as proven by the fact that states can still restrict carry and ex cons can still be denied the right to own forearms at all.
No professionals have weighed n on this unless you somehow think surealone is a lawyer.
nope heller did not declare anything, it examined and confirmed the historical record. It set no "new" precedence.
From the Mcdonald v chicago case:
Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,[15]
now you may wish to argue that:
and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. 554 U.S., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2801-2802; see also id., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2817 (stating that the "inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right").
therefore heller appears to set the precedent until we read the next line:
Heller makes it clear that this right is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." [by citing precedence of] Glucksberg, supra, at 721, 117 S.Ct. 2302 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Heller explored the right's origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, 554 U.S., at ___ - ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2797-2798, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was "one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen," id., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2798.
3037*3037 Blackstone's assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III's attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760's and 1770's "provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms."[16] Id., at ___, 128 S.Ct., at 2799; see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137-143 (1999) (hereinafter Levy).
This understanding persisted in the years immediately following the ratification of the Bill of Rights. In addition to the four States that had adopted Second Amendment analogues before ratification, nine more States adopted state constitutional provisions protecting an individual right to keep and bear arms between 1789 and 1820.
So heller did nothing more than review historical precedents and remind this historically disabled society where the bear shits in the buckwheat.
In so far as the felons are concerned restricting them of their right to own and bear is unconstitutional according to the original intent which only restricted those IN jail and those who would have been determined by a court not to be able bodied.
and its not nice to be a name calling twit, especially since I quoted and have been quoting how fuck twit supreme court justice marshal and his henchmen stole your rights, not on this board because I was banned at the time but long before the supreme court heard mcdonald I made the arguments and ironically the supreme court used the very same cases and legal premise to shoot those usurper cases down and ther are shit loads more that need to ba addressed.
Oh and I did get a post it on this board as well in a recent post.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
Barron v. Baltimore
United States v. Cruikshank
proof is that you DO NOT get (by any state that I am aware of)
Fifth Amendment right to an indictment by a grand jury (for any crime, crime is rubber stamped penalties now days and HUGE profit center to municipalities completely repugnant to the constitution)
or
Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in civil lawsuits. (In wisconsin hearsay is allowed in court and the fucking attorneys will come in and say any damn thing they want and lie their teeth off with near impunity unless you understand how to kick their ass. now average joe go in for speeding and let me know how you do with the judge and prosecutor drinking buddys.
AND:
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
the supreme Court has held that the Bill of Rights is not binding upon the states, and thereby resurrected many of the complaints enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, exactly as Thomas Jefferson foresaw.....
Please show me the case or cases that tells me we can have our slaves back...I can't wait and I can force you to testify against yourself and I can take away all of your guns.
BTW, what is the purpose of the bill of rights if [it] isn't the 'law of the land ?'
...and as I've suggested with this OP, THE two g r e a t e s t conspiracy 'theories' in history, elaborate as they needed to be, turned out to be...true, absolute fact.
More on this is that you cannot own a slave privately, however the government can own you as a slave. LOL
The people in england are called vassals which is there status. Same here in america, when your great gandaddy came over he had to swear allegiance before he could become a citizen and buy land within the US boundaries.
what is like in england?
quote:
A vassal was a person who had gone into a mutual obligation with a monarch or feudal lord. The monarch or lord got the vassal's allegiance and homage. In exchange the vassal got land and protection. This was essentially an agreement of mutual support, and was very important from a military perspective.
the state is sovereign and you pledged to the flag of the sovereign LOLOL small fucking world it tis!
The with the evolution of the Middle Ages, the vassals were divided between a higher group, whose titles and lands became inherited estates, and a lower group, whose holdings were not inherited. The higher group became the titled nobility, and the lower, which was more numerous, remained as vassal knights. These people were required to maintain groups of trained fighting men who could be mustered in times of conflict. The greater members of the nobility had the equivalent of small armies. A simple knight might have only himself and a few followers and servants.
In america we swear allegiance to the "proxy". LOL
unfortunately this is not a conspiracy theory but it was a very successful conspiracy to overthrow the government and it worked.
then it was necesary to drive the final nail in the coffin of the american dream by stealing their sovereign powers.
Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 US 243 - Supreme Court 1833 32 U.S. 243 (____) 7 Pet. 243
Supreme Court of United States.
We are of opinion, that the provision in the fifth amendment to the constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government 251*251 of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the states.
[and they were absolutely intended to limit the state powers, either that or neither can the supreme court, or the 14th take your pick orwellian gubafia cant have it both fucking ways! The problem is that they gave the power to the man as in singular not MOB corporation]
usurping runs that fine line of almost conspiracy, its not right but its not what weas intended but at the same time neither can you sue and win
Ex parte SPIES and others.
(October 2 J, 1887.)
ERROR, WRIT OF—FROM UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT—MOTION IN OPEN COURT.
That the first 10 articles of amendment were not intended to limit the powers of the state governments in respect to their own people, but to operate on the national government alone, was decided more than a half century ago, and that decision has been steadily adhered to since.
Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.
It was contended, however, in argument, that, "though originally the first ten amendments were adopted as limitations on federal power, yet, in so far as they secure and recognize fundamental rights—common-law rights—of the man, [they were unlawfully converted and NOW] they make them privileges and immunities of the man as a citizenof the United States, and cannot now be abridged by a state under the fourteenth amendment. In other words, while the ten amendments as limitations on power only apply to the federal government, and not to the states, yet in so far as they declare or recognize rights of persons, these rights are theirs, as citizens of the United States, and the fourteenth amendment as to such 'rights limits state power, as the ten amendments had limited federal power." It is also contended that the provision of the fourteenth amendment, which declares that no state shall deprive "any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law," implies that every person charged with crime in a state shall be entitled to a trial by an impartial jury, and shall not be compelled to testify against himself.
the government as in the courts unlawfully converted your status and demoted you from man with full rights to citizen with states rights.
Used the courts as a weapon of tyranny and despotism to slant the scales back to life in england prerevolution!
Hows that for the grandest of grand conspiracies? Lets see you top that! lol
I dont suppose too many people realize that as man and as citizen are 2 completely different levels of rights.
as man the city cites you for an ord violation you can tell them to get fucked, as citizen they bend you over and give you the sandpaper strapon. Just a minor detail, nothing to think twice about! lmao
now the DOI "IS" the fundamental rights of man, so where does that leave you and your declaration as organic law?
fundamental rights of the man,
[they were unlawfully converted and NOW]
privileges as citizenof the United States,
where is your fundamental law now?
incidentaly your constitution says you have the right to "worshiip" that is not the same as "exercise".
So I say the largest conspiracy known to man is the english/us/common law countries court system. I have never seen a larger scale atrocity go completely unoticed by the general public.
Unfortunately they did not shoot down spies that would have been the case to nail.
spies lists all the cases used to steal the rights of "man" that extend beyond states privileges.
Barron v. Baltimore., 7 Pet. 243, 247; Livingston v. Moore, Id. 469, 552; Fox v. Ohio, 5 How 410, 434; Smith v. Maryland, 18 How. 71, 76; Withers v. Buckley, 20 How. 84, 91; Percear v. Com., 5 Wall. 475, 479; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321. 325; Justices v. Murray, 9 Wall. 274, 278; Edwards v. Elliott, 21 Wall. 532, 557; Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90; U. 8. v. Cruiksiiank, Id. 542, 552; Pearson v. Tewdall, 95 U. S. 294, 296; Davidson v. New Orleans, 96 U. S. 97, 101; Kelly v. Pittsburgh, 104 U. S. 79; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580.
Only barron and criushank were cited in mcdonalds, but those and the rest of the cases cited in spies all had the same wrongfully adjudicated theme by state usurpers and finally the supreme court to add insult to injury.
so you may want to check your smart talk since you got the precedence incorrect. It was established long before the constitution in this country existed LOL
and if that does not throw a big enough wrench into your statist wonderland, they recognized the laws of nature that extend beyond the constitutions but they like all courts are terrified of unleashing the the 10th amendment because that is where we the individuals are recognized as sovereigns with the ability to declare our own rights without state caveats...... oh the fear, truly free people and the end of statism as you know it.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.
< Message edited by Real0ne -- 4/18/2013 10:09:43 PM >
_____________________________
"We the Borg" of the us imperialists....resistance is futile
Democracy; The 'People' voted on 'which' amendment?
Yesterdays tinfoil is today's reality!
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session
|
RE: The 2nd Amendment is NOT unlimited... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread