Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Gun Rights Advocates File Lawsuit Against Seattle Over Ban

November 6, 2009 by  

Gun rights advocates file lawsuit against Seattle over banFollowing up on a promise made several weeks ago, The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the National Rifle Association (NRA) and five local residents filed a lawsuit late last week challenging a new Seattle parks regulation that bans firearms.

The new parks and recreation administrative policy prohibits firearms in parks, community centers and other city-owned buildings, but the plaintiffs argue that it violates Washington State’s long-standing preemption statute, adopted more than 25 years ago.

"It essentially impairs the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms for personal protection, which is explicitly protected by Article 1, Section 24 of the state constitution," says SAF executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb.

He also expressed his satisfaction that the NRA has joined in the lawsuit, saying "our successful collaboration in the past stopped illegal gun confiscations in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and nullified an illegal gun ban in the city of San Francisco."

The two organizations are joined by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and the Washington Arms Collectors and filed their lawsuit in the Superior Court of Washington State in King County.

ADNFCR-1961-ID-19439287-ADNFCR

Special To Personal Liberty

You Sound Off! is written by our readers and appears the last Wednesday of each month. If you would like to submit an article or letter to the editor for consideration for You Sound Off!, send it to yousoundoff@personalliberty.com by the Friday before the last Wednesday of the month. To be considered, a submission should be 750 words or less and must include the writer's name, address and a telephone number. Only the writer's name will be published. Anonymous submissions will not be considered.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Gun Rights Advocates File Lawsuit Against Seattle Over Ban”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Gary

    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.

    • JeffH

      You will find Mayor Greg Nickels is a member of Bloomberg’s MAIG group. Bloomberg created “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” as a front group to lobby Congress to oppose important pro-gun reforms and support new federal gun control restrictions. And some mayors have joined or been duped into joining this anti-gun Bloomberg crusade. If your mayor has joined MAIG, it is critical that he or she resign from this anti-gun group. You can do your part by contacting your mayor’s office today and urging your mayor to withdraw his or her MAIG membership. A number of mayors have already quit the anti-gun Bloomberg coalition and yours should be the next one to do so.
      Please call, e-mail and write your mayor today and ask him or her to support law-abiding gun owners by publicly disassociating with Michael Bloomberg and “Mayors Against Illegal Guns.” Help your mayor make the right choice between protecting your Second Amendment rights or continuing to be associated with those who actively oppose and undermine your firearms freedom.

      • James

        JeffH, No one in Washington State, or any other state, has a Second Amendment right. Every American was born with the right. The Washington State Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 24 states: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the State, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”
        Not even the Second Amendment Foundation mentioned the Second Amendment this time (they learned) why don’t you?

        • J C

          EVERY American has the right to self defense. Every American has the right to freedom of assembly and the right to maintain a militia.
          Just because some court ruling more recent than the Constitution has decided otherwise changes nothing. An un Constitutional law is null and void on its face. And every American needs to know it and defend their Constitutional rights. Have a nice day. :)

        • JeffH

          James, isn’t your mother calling you. Stop your lectures about MY Second Amendment Rights already. Please contribute, not do your lectures of law with me. I understand my rights, you don’t. All you have done is continue to be Pete the repeater. It is old already. OK!

          • DaveH

            Jeff,
            Don’t be so hard on James. It is his Liberal right to drown us in double-speak.

      • Rod

        We called our Mayor and he told us , he resigned. Bloomberg, however
        lies and continue’s to tell everyone, the Mayor’s who have resigned,
        still belong to his STUPID Org. So, be sure and talk to your Mayor.

  • Rod

    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!

  • http://sitebloggs.com Chuckie

    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?

  • http://myronjpoltroonian.blogspot.com Myron J. Poltroonian

    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?

  • James Corbin

    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?????

    • http://INTERNETEXPLORER Bob Beez

      ROBERT, I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLE HEARTEDLY ON YOUR COMMENT AND I AGREE ALSO WITH ROD ON HIS COMMENTS AND ALSO I CAN TELL ALL OF YOU THAT THIS U S OF A IS GOING TO HELL IN A HAND BAG SINCE HUSSIEN TOOK OFFICE BECAUSE HE HAS NOT DONE ONE THING TO HELP THIS COUNTRY EXCEPT BRING MORE PROBLEMS TO THE AMERICANS AND I KNOW IT HAS JUST STARTED BECAUSE PALOSI IS A PASIFIST AND OBAMA IS A RASCIST.

  • Paul Wade

    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?

  • Paul Wade

    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!

  • RM

    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.

  • James

    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.

    • JeffH

      Mush james mush!

      • DaveH

        Since the Constitution only gave the Federal Government certain enumerated powers, which didn’t include the power to ban arms, the Second Amendment would have been redundant if limited to only the Federal Government. James must be a lawyer as he is trying to inundate us with volumes of print – a favored technique of lawyers.
        Have any of you ever heard of anyone arguing that freedom of speech or the search and seizure rules only apply to the states? Of course not!
        For decades the Liberals argued that the 2nd Amendment only applied to Militias. That argument was shot down by the Supreme Court recently, so now the Liberals are trying their new tactic – that it doesn’t apply to the states. Give it a rest James.
        http://gunowners.org/mcdonaldvchicago.htm

    • Rod

      James, as usual you are full of horse pucky! Lots of mouth and
      misunderstanding of clear facts that don’t happen to match what
      you want them to be! It’s to bad that people like you are destined
      for the lower things in life! It’s seems such a waste to write all that crap and say nothing that makes sence to anyone but yourself.

      • Lynn

        JeffH and Rod, gentlemen, for clarification what exactly did James get wrong? He quoted an awful lot of legal decisions to make his point. What exactly is his misunderstanding? I’ve got to be honest, I read it twice and I’m not sure I completely understand all of the legal points, so maybe you could explain what he got wrong. Or maybe James could could follow-up and explain what all of these cases mean in simpler “layman’s” terms.

        • Rod

          What he got wrong is his interpretation of what the facts really are!

          • Lynn

            OK Rod… that’s what I need you to clarify. What facts did he get wrong? Explain the error of his interpretation. I have a beautiful old German Mauser rifle from WW1 (a distant relative’s war trophy) that I want to keep. Where is Rod wrong and how do we prevent the “slippery slope” from getting to the point where I lose my Mauser?

          • JeffH

            Lynn try joining the NRA or GOA. They fight for your freedoms and “the right to keep and bear arms”. Your Mauser is considerd a C&R by the way.

        • JeffH

          We understand the basis of The Second Amendement. That is ALL i NEED TO KNOW. I don’t need a “lawyers” legal interpretation on this matter. James, and his intentions might be noble, has cluttered others comments citing the “mumbo jumbo” terminolgy as written or as interpreted. I prefer a much more simple delivery, wouldn’t you?

          • JeffH

            I tend to trust the NRA for my basic interpretations, and yet when I quote the NRA, James looks for the loophole to say they are mistaken. Well, when I have the “right to keep and bear arms”, that means, in my mind anyway, that I have a “guaranteed right”. This isn’t about crossing a T or dotting an I for godsakes.

          • DaveH

            I don’t think James intentions are noble. He is simply trying to do what Liberals do best – mislead people. He can cite all the case history he wants. It proves nothing. Lawyers have been trying to misconstrue the Constitution since its inception. The pressure is always there for the Leaders to gain absolute power and they and their apologists will say whatever they can to achieve that goal.
            It is up to the citizens to see through the smoke and mirrors and stop their quest for absolute power.
            Armed people are citizens, disarmed people are subjects.

        • James

          Lynn, Rights were won in the Revolutionary War; the people secured those rights in their respective state constitutions; then the states created the federal government, delegated certain powers to it, but denied it power over rights, by adding the Bill of Rights restrictions.

          I think that’s as simply as it can be stated. Our rights are fundamental, they aren’t dependent on constitutions (state or federal) for their existence.
          Those who avoid the first five words in the Bill of Rights, do so for one of two reasons. They see them as contrary to what they believe (how can the Bill of Rights protect rights if ‘Congress shall make no law’), or they want Congress to have power over rights (how can the federal government subject Americans to world-government without power over their rights).

          • DaveH

            Don’t take stuff out of context James. This is the entire First Amendment:
            “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

            There is no reference of “Congress shall make no law” in the following Amendments. Here are all the Amendments. Especially pay attention to the Fourteenth Amendment:
            http://www.cato.org/pubs/constitution/amendments_en.html

            And notice people that nobody has argued that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the states. In fact, it is just the opposite. Liberals have construed from the First Amendment that there is a “Separation of Church and State” to the extent where they can justify forbidding public schools from allowing prayer, even if nobody is forced to participate. I ask you to read the First Amendment carefully and see if you think it says that.

            Read the whole Constitution yourselves. Don’t take Liberals’ word for it. And remember that the Constitution was written to protect the citizens from Big Government. We cannot expect Big Government to faithfully obey those constraints willingly. It is the nature of Government to seek increasing power over the citizens.

          • DaveH
          • James

            DaveH, Whether “Congress shall make no law” is in or out of context, the First Amendment’s restrictions still only apply to Congress (the Federal Gov’t.). Your inference that since “Congress shall make no law” isn’t repeated in the amendments that follow, they don’t apply exclusively to Congress is silly.
            In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held: “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this…means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.” Presser v. Illinois held: “the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of Congress, and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”
            I’m curious, did you read those cases above? If yes, are you just refusing to accept them?

      • James

        Rod, what “clear facts” have I misunderstood? The Bill of Rights Preamble declaring them to be “restrictive clauses?” The First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law?” The Ninth Amendment’s “enumeration…of certain rights shall not be construed to deny…others retained by the people?” The Tenth Amendment’s “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States…or to the people?”
        Where did I go wrong?

    • CindyL

      James, What is that the reason that schools can have an ordinance preventing, knifes, guns any kind of weapon within a 1000 yards of the school? I understand that it is to protect the children, so would the same premise be used to protect the children in parks?

      • James

        Cindy, Yes it would. All States control what may and what may not be possessed on public property. That has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution.

      • DaveH

        The reason Cindy for any gun law is another baby-step to the ultimate goal of gun confiscation. The government will do whatever it can get away with. Governments throughout history have strived to disarm the citizens. Think about this. Do you think someone with murder in their hearts is going to worry about breaking a gun law? There is no more heinous crime then murder and they aren’t afraid to break that law.
        The recent massacre at Fort Hood should be an eye-opener for anyone that swallows the Liberal line. All the laws on the books won’t stop a determined killer. The only chance we have is to defend ourselves. Government Leaders are only concerned about themselves. They could care less about whether we live or die. Do you care whether I live or die? Of course not, and I wouldn’t expect you to. Don’t think for a minute that the people in government are any different.
        My heart goes out to all the victims of murder in this country who may have been able to defend themselves if the government wasn’t making it so hard for them to protect themselves.

        • James

          DaveH, Well said! Hoodlums feel safer in parks and places where guns are forbidden. Major Hasam, destined for Afghanistan as an Army Psychiatrist, shouted “Allahu Akbar!” (God is Great) before he opened fire, killing 13 and wounding 30.

          • DaveH

            Are there two James on this board?

  • Rod

    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.

  • James

    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?

    • Rod

      You’re adlibing again James. Where can you find that the bill of rights and (especially the second amendment) dose not apply to all
      Americans? Reading the Bill of Rights and understanding it are two different things! I believe the bill of rights and the second amendment were meant for ALL Americans.

      • James

        Rod, you are confusing the ‘right’ with the amendment’s purpose. The opperative clause “shall not be infringed” applies exclusively to the federal government. I found that in what the Founders said at the Constitutional Convention (when the federal government was being created). And I found that in what the U.S. Supreme Court has held concerning the Bill of Rights (and the Second Amendment in particular), I fail to see how quoting the Highest Court could possibly be construed as adlibbing. The Supreme Court is charged with ascertainingj what the U.S. constitution means, and its decisions are the final word on it.

      • http://INTERNETEXPLORER Bob Beez

        Right on Rod, and I think James just doesn’t get it or he’s just trying to kiss up to obama and palosi and their cronies, you know in the click. Or he’s probably a plant by either the state or the feds.

    • DaveH

      James, you aren’t the messenger; you are the misinformer.

      • CindyL

        Dave, maybe he is just trying to let us know what agruement that the anti- gun collation will be using. Why do you automatically decide he is a Liberal? What did I miss? It sounded like he was only giving facts, not taking a side.

        • James

          Cindy, thank you. In our beginnings, a liberal was someone who wanted the U.S. Constitution to be more elastic. A conservative was one who is a strict constructionist. By that definition I am a conservative and Dave is the liberal. The purpose for the Bill of Rights was to prevent the just-created federal government from legislating over rights within the States. To me, that’s being conservative.

        • DaveH

          Simply put Cindy – Liberals prefer Big Government and Conservatives prefer Limited Government.

          • DaveH

            I have posted many resources in my comments. I don’t expect you to take my word for anything. Do your own study.

        • DaveH

          And Cindy, James is not giving facts. He is giving his opinion. Do your own study to learn the facts. There are many resources available at the Library and on the Internet.

      • James

        DaveH, The Bill of Rights restrictions and the Supreme Court decisions upholding them are on our side. Do you want Congress to infringe on our gun rights?

        • DaveH

          I want all governments in this United States to abide by the Constitution or change it legally or secede from the Union. We as citizens are expected to obey the laws. I expect no less from the people in government.

          • James

            DaveH, I think my question deserves an answer. Do you want Congress to infringe on our gun rights? For example, do you support H.R. 45 which will require every American gun owner to be licensed by the feds? And be taxed for the privilege of owning a firearm? Or do you believe H.R. 45 would violate the Second Amendment?

  • Robert

    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.

  • Rod

    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.

    • James

      Rod, Well said. But the Second Amendment is not a proclamation to the world at large. Its “shall not be infringed” applies exclusively to Congress, just as the First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law.” Within the States, rights are secured by state constitutions and laws enacted pursuant thereto. A state’s law has no effect beyond its state borders, and a federal law has no effect beyond the borders of the United States.

      • DaveH

        More misinformation. More taking phrases out of context. Give it a rest James. We know your point of view already.

  • Rod

    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.

    • James

      Rod & DaveH, my point of view is what the U.S. Supreme Court has held, concerning the Bill of Rights, from our beginnings. It is restrictive clauses that apply exclusively to the federal government. Its purpose was to protect our rights from federal meddling.
      H.R. 45, a House Bill sponsored by Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Il), would, essentially, prohibit the right to bear arms, to many Americans, because of the taxes and record keeping it requires. I say that Bill would violate the Second Amendment, what say ye?

    • James

      Rod, When you say “‘Shall not be infringed’ applies to the people,” are you saying the Second Amendment prohibits people from infringing on each others right? Are you saying the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to any government legislation? I’m just trying to understand what you meant by that. Thank you.

  • James

    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?

  • James

    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.

  • http://none Dr Richard Biek

    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.

  • Joe H.

    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!!!!

  • Bernie

    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.

  • skipfoss

    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

    • Bernie

      What do you think that $787B for the states thing was all about?

  • Rod

    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.

  • Rod

    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!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.