James, you can call it anything you’re little heart desires. What it
remains to be, is the people’s rights, NOT the Goverments! I’ll bet
you would be good at catching flies, THEY DON’T BITE BACK!

The trouble with the radical left is: They think We the people rode in on a head of cabbage, That’s why we are going to beat the pants off of them in 2010- 2012!

I have talked to alot of Dems. that voted for this CREEP. They said
NEVER AGAIN! All we have to do is VOTE, get a new Congress in and neutralize Obama!

James, The trouble with you is: You love to read things and then apply them to what YOU WANT IT TO BE. You even
attempt to put your words and your beliefs into other people’s mouth.
You know damn well what I mean! Playing word games is your thing and
I must say James, you should change your hobby, cause you are not very good at this one! Your a Flea in the outpost of Obama’s pure
manure! You may even grow up to be one of Obama’s turds. He wouldn’t
shit his favorite turd.

If These stupid assine liberals would put the effort into trying to find a way to put prople back to work instead of trying to fight the bill of rights and the Constitution we would not have tg 10.2% unemployment or quit lying anout the number of jobs they have saved or created the real number would be 22%. Obama has lied from the first statment he made and has not stoped,if you could put liars in jail yis Muslim communist would be in for the rest of his life

In my opinion, gun control needs to stop. I think we should do away with it all and let every American over the age of 18 own a gun if they want to. If we established a new system where every gun that was sold had a ballistics assessment on file along with the name of the person who owns the gun, the only people who should be getting upset are those who want to go out and murder someone.

Dr. Biek,
You will never see that. If that were to happen the average citizen could argue their own case using common sense and lawyers would not be needed. The lawyers among us will always use double speak to confuse and mislead. this in turn validates their chosen profession! As the old joke goes: what do you call ten thousand lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A: A good start!!!!

Any law, bill or regulation that cannot be clearly stated in less than half a page and cannot be easily understood by the average public high school senior should instantly become null and void.

When average citizens cannot understand what happens in the federal government, they are disenfranchized.

I think the key to understanding the Second Amendment’s meaning lies in separating the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ from the amendment’s purpose ‘shall not be infringed.’ If one believes that the Second Amendment IS the right (i.e., that the right and the amendment are synonymous expressions) then those stating that the amendment does not apply to the States (including Supreme Court decisions) are viewed as advocating denial of the right to individuals within the States.
But the right existed before the amendment, the High Court has clearly stated the right is not dependent on the amendment for its existence. Think of the amendment as only prohibiting infringement on the right, by Congress, then the confusion ends, and the above High Court decisions make sense. The Second Amendment is not the right, it’s a restriction placed upon Congress.
Similar restrictions on state laws are in state constitutions. For example, the Illinois Constitution, Article I, Sec. 22 states: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The City of Chicago has an ordinance which prohibits possession of handguns in the metropolitan area, and that was challenged in McDonald v. City of Chicago. However, Mr. McDonald assumed the ordinance violated the Second Amendment and filed his lawsuit in a federal District Court, which ruled against his assumption. On appeal, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that “the Second Amendment does not apply to State and local governments.” Mr. McDonald then appealed to the Supreme Court via a Writ of Certiorari, which the High Court accepted and will review McDonald’s contention and the lower court procedings, in the near future.
But unless the High Court overturns Barron, Cruikshank, Presser, Miller and Heller (which has about as much chance as a snowball in hell), they will make it crystal clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right from federal infringement.
With that, I’ll leave you.

In H.R. 45, a Bill sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il), Title I, Sec 101(aa)(1) reads in part: “IN GENERAL – It shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed importer…manufacturer…dealer, or…collector to possess a qualifying firearm…unless that person has been issued a firearm license…[by a federal bureau which the Bill establishes].” Does that infringe on the right to bear arms?

Yes DaveH We do know his view! They have eyes but they don’t see! They
have ears but they don’t hear! you will hear their SCREAMS above all the rest of us when the time comes!

“shall not be infringed” applies to the people James! To protect ourselves from the SLIM BALLS that OOOZE their way into our Government.

You just cannot change the facts because they don’t meet your personal
likes or dislikes! Democracy was won ,in this country, by Americans
that laid down their lives and limb’s. These were folks that were
just trying to make a life for themselves and their families and answered the call to FIGHT for THEIR RIGHTS.Their individual rights!
The bill of rights and the second amendment are part of those RIGHTS!
Not to be infringed by the Hitlers, the Stalin’s or the Obama’s and
Palosi’s It’s WE THE PEOPLE James, NOT THEM, THE CRIMINALS! They think we are as stupid as they are! The kind of CRAP these people are
trying to bring down on us has been tried before aqnd TYRANNY has always LOST! You know why? because there are GREAT AMERICANS out here
all ready to defend those RIGHTS AGAIN.

A never ending battle for Truth, Justice and the Ameerican Way of Life. Where is superman when we really need him. With one exhale he could blow away all the terrorist politicans in Washington. My friends, this government is intent on confiscating all guns legally held by American citizens. Once that is accomplished, they then will be the masters of us slaves.

All these cases mean what they clearly say. The Bill of Rights’ restrictions apply exclusively to the federal government. It is not the source of our rights. Americans have fundamental rights by virtue of their birth here. The question that needs answering is: Where did the concept come from, that the Bill of Rights (especially the Second Amendment) applies to the States?
If all federal-court case-law holds that the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” restricts only the nationall government, why shoot the messenger for disclosing it?

I look at it this way, the Constitution gives me a right to have my
guns. I have them because I WANT TO HAVE THEM! I am a member of the N.R.A. for my own reasons.

In the original Constitution (1789), the powers that were delegated to Congress (Article I, Section 8) made no mention of rights, and about half of the Founders believed that would suffice to prevent the new federal government from legislating over rights. However, others thought future congresses might misconstrue those powers, to include rights, and insisted upon adding a Bill of Rights (in 1791). Thus the Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads (bold added):

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.
The stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” by adding “restrictive clauses” with respect to rights. They start with “Congress shall make no law respecting…or prohibiting…or abridging” the five rights mentioned therein, then the Second Amendment reads:

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.

Contrary to a popular understanding, it does not say ‘the people shall have the right,’ it just says: “the right of the people…shall not be infringed.” Viewing that amendment separately has enticed many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as applying to state legislatures as well as Congress. However, when viewed within the Bill of Rights’ context, the “shall not be infringed,” just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” clearly applies only to the national government.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court said: “We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment of the Constitution.” After meticulous analysis of every word and clause in the amendment, the Heller Court stated: “In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” (This is the first, and only, time the High Court has ever held any law in violation of the 2nd Amendment.)
Just remember that the decision involved an ordinance of a territory that fell under federal jurisdiction. The precedents the Court relied on are as follows:

In Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833), Mr. Chief Justice Marshall said: “The [U.S.] constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states…the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the general government, not as applicable to the states.” (Bold added.)
In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), a mob of whites had disarmed two blacks (in Louisiana) and the issue was whether that action had violated the right of blacks to bear arms, and thus violated the Second Amendment. Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: “This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.” (Bold added.)
In Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), Mr. Presser claimed that an Illinois Military Code provision (requiring state permits for parades, which he had ignored) was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and his Second Amendment right. As to the latter, the High Court said: “A conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.” (The Court cited Cruikshank as authority.) (Bold added.)
In Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 537-8 (1894), Mr. Miller was indicted and convicted for murder in Dallas County, Texas, and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals had affirmed the conviction. At the U.S. Supreme Court, the issue was whether Miller’s Writ of Error was valid – not his guilt or innocence. The Court said: “We think there is no federal question properly presented by the record in this case, and that the writ of error must be dismissed upon that ground.” Then concerning Miller’s contention that a Texas gun-law had violated the Second and Fourth Amendments, the Court said: “We have examined the record in vain, however, to find where the defendant was denied the benefit of these provisions, and even if it were, it is well settled that the restrictions of these amendments operate only upon the federal power, and have no reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” (Bold added) (The Court cited Cruikshank, and 5 other federal cases as authority.)

Then, 114 years later, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008), the Court cited and quoted Cruikshank, and reaffirmed all the above (in footnote 23):

With respect to Cruikshank’s continuing validity on incorporation, a question not presented by this case, we note that Cruikshank also said that the First Amendment did not apply against the States and did not engage in the sort of Fourteenth Amendment inquiry required by our later cases. Our later decisions in Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886) and Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535, 538 (1894), reaffirmed that the Second Amendment applies only to the Federal Government. (Bold added.)

This unbroken series of High Court decisions clearly state that the Bill of Rights’ restrictions (which certainly include the Second Amendment’s “shall not be infringed”) apply exclusively to the federal government. (The Court’s ‘incorporation’ comment has confused many. However it just said that up to that time the 2nd Amendment had not been incorporated, via the 14th Amendment, into any state.)

Then in the federal 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals area, we have Bach v. Pataki (2005), where Mr. Bach had argued that a New York state law violated the Second Amendment, and the Court said: “We hold that the ‘right to keep and bear arms’ does not apply against the States and affirm the District Court’s dismissal of Bach’s Second Amendment claim” [this was before Heller].
And Maloney v. Cuomo, (2009), where whether nunchaku sticks were protected by the Second Amendment was considered, and the Court said: “It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on the right” [bold added, and the Court cited Presser, Bach and Heller as authority]. That agrees with the Supreme Court’s position Maloney followed those High Court precedents, including Heller, precisely.

As to incorporating the Second Amendment into a state through the Fourteenth Amendment, most Americans have assumed that ‘incorporation’ means the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” would then apply to a state’s legislature, in the same manner it applies to Congress. However, as the recent case in the Ninth Circuit demonstrated, that isn’t true, nor is it even possible.

In Nordyke v. King, (2009) the 9th Circuit, through its own initiative, incorporated the Second Amendment therein. In California, an Alameda County ordinance had prohibited any further gun-shows at their fairground. Mr. And Mrs. Nordyke had organized and sponsored these shows at that fairground (and other fairgrounds in the west) for years. They filed suit in federal District Court, claiming this ordinance violated their civil rights, lost there, and lost again when the 9th Circuit affirmed.
When considering how the Second Amendment might be incorporated, the Court said: “There are three doctrinal ways the Second Amendment might apply to the states: (1) direct application, (2) incorporation by the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or (3) incorporation by the Due Process Clause of the same Amendment.”
As to ‘direct application’ the Court said: “Supreme Court precedent forecloses the first option. The Bill of Rights directly applies only to the federal government Barron v. Mayor of Balt….(1833)…the Supreme Court has never explicitly overruled Barron. [Then]…Therefore, the Second Amendment does not directly apply to the states. See United States v. Cruikshank (1875); see also Presser v. Illinois (1886)…” [Bold added].

Then: “We are similarly barred from considering incorporation through the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The Clause provides that ‘[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’ …This language protects only those rights that derive from United States citizenship, but not those general civil rights independent of the Republic’s existence…The former include only rights the Federal Constitution grants or the national government enables, but not those preexisting rights the Bill of Rights merely protects from federal invasion…The Second Amendment protects a right that predates the Constitution; therefore, the Constitution did not grant it. See e.g., Heller, …(‘[I]t has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment… codified a pre-existing right.’)” [Bold added].

The Ninth Circuit was thus left with only the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment, which reads: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The 9th Circuit reasoned that since the right to bear arms existed before the federal government and was thus inalienable it was certainly a part of one’s ‘liberty.’ But since the Alameda County ordinance was a valid law, and since the Nordykes had not been deprived of their personal right to arms, they affirmed the District Court and held that the Nordykes had not been deprived of their ‘liberty’ without due process of law. (“Without due process of law” there-means state law.)
Thus we see that ‘incorporation’ does not mean what many Americans assumed.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling that the Second Amendment may not be “directly” incorporated in the States (i.e., the ‘shall not be infringed’ cannot be directly applied to a state’s law) is because of the above-quoted High Court precedents (including Heller), which all held the amendment applies exclusively to the national government.

If we don’t accept that history of the Bill of Rights, we’ll never agree on anything. The Bill of Rights is restrictive clauses that apply exclusively to the federal government – so says the U.S. Supreme Court and every lower federal court, from our beginnings.

Well the members of congress and the rest of obama’s henchmen are welcome to come to my home to try and take my weapons. Of course there will be lead being thrown, instead of words. It is just another attempt by the socialist liberals to confiscate our firearms in any manner they so choose, however they will find it to be difficult to take. Most people I have spoken with have no intentions of surrendering there firearms to anyone, especially to obama’s henchmen. As far as there healthcare I agree with Paul Wade, lets just be added to there policy. And I DO Not Leave Home Without One. It is time to cut with the BS and get down to business. If they want a fight they will surely get one. Instead they want to play there BS Politics and try and pass laws. Well as I said if they want a fight then they are going to get a big one. Unite and rid this country of these socialist liberals.

Sice congress is so insistent on providing us with a NEW healthcare bill, why don’t they just add us on to their bill. Since we put them in office, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us. Or do they just think so differently? After all, who is paying for their health bill?

And as for your weapons… don’t leave home without it!

Sice congress is so insistent on providing us with a NEW healthcare bill, why don’t they just add us on to their bill. Since we put them in office, if it’s good enough for them, it’s good enough for us. Or do they just think so differently? After all, who is paying for their health bill?

This is just another way to take our rights away—–If the government health care passes, gun rights are taken, Freedom of speech
( Fox News ) This is the way the government is taking over!! Wise Up
people!!! One more thing—-SPREAD THE WEALTH!!!!! What does this tell you?????

Hmm. If James is correct, does this mean NerObama will not be allowed to organize his “Civilian Police Force; just as large, just as well armed as the military” in Washington State?

What ever Law is past it dose not change the Constitution and the Amendments of our rights their is over 1.5 million people who are not going to give up their guns …. so government you are not going to disarm the people who live by our rights I that see their are many people who don’t even know their constitutional rights this was given to us because the four fathers knew this day would come as it was in their day running King Gorge out of this country.

My question which one of you are going to stand for the constitution and our Liberty?

James, as usual you lefties adlib with free motion of your mouth.
you add and subtract phrase’s as it fits your agenda, NOT THE FACTS!

That miserable idiot that’s mayor of Seattle just can’t leave the honest law abiding people alone. No wonder the people of Seattle voted him out of office. Good riddence to bad ullage. I sincerely hope his political carrer is over for good.