Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Second Amendment Foundation Hails PR ‘Coup’ In San Francisco

September 9, 2010 by  

Second Amendment Foundation hails PR 'coup' in San Francisco As national gun rights leaders are preparing to hold the 25th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference in San Francisco later this month, they are also celebrating a significant public relations victory in the famously liberal city.

More than 15 ads promoting the event have appeared in transit locations around San Francisco, which the Second Amendment Foundation called "something of a coup."

The organization said San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency allowed the posters to go up despite its rules that prohibit advertising that may promote the use of firearms.

"We suspect the MTA is allowing our ads despite their policy because they believed we were prepared to file a lawsuit on First and Second Amendment grounds if the city didn’t take them," said Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF executive vice president.

"Knowing we were responsible for the McDonald victory over Chicago and the defeat of their own 2005 gun ban proposition, and probably aware of our litigation in New York, Maryland, North Carolina, Illinois and California, they did not want to lock horns with us again," he added.

The conference will be held at the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport hotel from Sept. 24 to 26 and will bring together gun rights activists from around the nation.ADNFCR-1961-ID-19936684-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 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 “Second Amendment Foundation Hails PR ‘Coup’ In San Francisco”

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

  • dan az

    I think they needed the money so bad that they would have handed out pink guns for the first hundred that showed up!

    • http://?? Joe H.

      dan az,
      Gun controllers are going to lose one of their most ardent supporters. I read in our paper today that Mayor Daley has decided to retire and will not seek re-election!! There IS a GOD and HE HEARS PRAYERS!!!!

      • http://PeersonalLibraryDigest Michael G.

        Hi Joe,
        Its about time isn’t it? How long has he been there? Twenty plus years?

        • Ron

          It was not twenty “plus” years, it was twenty “negative” years.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        AMEN Brother!!

  • http://GOGGLE vaksal

    WELL,while yes it is something the cold hard facts cailfornias leaders are pushing ab 2658 ,and it will effect every gun owner in the state,(the legal ones),Why,because if its passed every person buying ammunition in this state will have that purchase sent to their local law enforcement agency,as permanet documents,so if the local politician in your area,decides for you,no more rifles or guns,its a back door gun registion law,another freedom gone,( privacy)and to top it off come this dec.2010 no more purchasing ammunition over the internet or out of state,so whats to cheer about? its a no brainer,our U.S. CONSTITUTION and BILL OF RIGHTS have been hyjacked,by the left wing liberals and the neo-com communist radicals,liberty it has been trashed,never thought i would see the day, that a bunch of self serving dogs could do this to the american people and every law bidding person in this nation,its time to vote out these usurpers of americas freedoms,and the question is what is the point of these folks patting themselfs on the back,for what? a false sense of a hollow victory,its wake up time,welcome to the nightmare of communism,american style.what next? numbers on our foreheads? vote all the bums out that passed these laws.

    • James

      Vaksal, here’s a little Second Amendment history:
      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). The Preamble to the Bill of Rights reads:

      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.

      Thus the stated purpose for the Bill of Rights was to add “restrictive clauses” “in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers” with respect to rights, where ‘its powers’ referred to the federal government. 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.

      Viewing the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights’ context has misled many to misconstrue its “shall not be infringed” as a proclamation to all governments, including state legislatures as well as Congress. But, just as the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” obviously applies exclusively to the federal government, so also does the Second Amendment.

      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.”
      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 Second Amendment right of the blacks. 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.”
      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.”

      Just remember that that decision involved an ordinance of a territory (the District of Columbia), which falls under federal jurisdiction, it has no effect within the States. The Heller Court cited Barron, Cruikshank and other High Court decisions as precedents.
      In McDonald v. Chicago, the case just recently decided by the High Court, the issue was whether a state’s city ordinance, which prohibited handgun possession in a certain area, had violated the Second Amendment. Based upon previous High Court precedents, it did not the Court rather held that it violated the “liberty” in the “due process of law” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That is, the “liberty” of that Amendment now includes the unalienable right to bear arms, just as previous decisions added miscegenation, abortion and homosexual acts to one’s “liberty.”
      No State law has ever been held violative of the Second Amendment, for the simple reason that the Bill of Rights has always applied exclusively to the national government.

      • Vicki

        It’s a little more complicated than that.
        “Scalia observed that while the Court’s earlier ruling in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876) stated that the Second Amendment did not apply against the states, “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.””

        SO Cruikshank did not engage the 14th argument on First Amendment cases either. Are you saying that any state government can silence you at any time. Are you saying that the 5th amendment protections only protect you from federal government cases?

        I know a lot of DAs will be happy to hear that they can now force people to testify against themselves.

        • James

          Vicki, Cruikshank did not explore the 14th Amendment’s “liberty” approach because neither party requested it. Back then, the “liberty” of the 14th Amendment only applied to the just freed slaves, and did not include rights at all. It only restricted the States from depriving blacks of “Life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The High Court simply said the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the States, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
          And, No, I am not saying a “state government can silence you at any time.” I am saying the Bill of Rights only restricts the federal government. State Constitutions restrict the states.
          For example, the Illinois Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 22 reads: “Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Chicago ordinance violated that, not the 2nd Amendment. Rights are unalienable. Like the Cruikshank Court said, they are not dependent on any constititon for their existence. There seems to be a near total ignorance, here, of the separation of powers. I have yet to see any comments here that cite or even mention one’s state constitution.

          • Vicki

            If rights are as you say “unalienable” why may a state ( Illinois for instance) alienate where the Feds can’t? The reason most of us do not bother with the state constitutions is that, right or wrong most of us have been taught that the Bill of Rights applies to all government entities. Silly us. However since you brought up states rights let us look at the oft ignored 10th amendment.

            “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. ”

            So let me see. Some powers were delegated to the fedgov (coining money as example) Some powers were prohibited by the Constitution to the States. (That would be the Bill of Rights in particular) are reserved to the States and to the people.

            Clear as day. The States do have limitations to their power beyond what powers were given to the FedGov.

            You can not really believe that people who just finished dealing with government would somehow miss that state and city government can be just as bad as federal government

            (“Would you tell me please, Mr. Howard… why should I trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away?
            — Mel Gibsons Char in “The Patriot”)

            The Idea that Illinois protects firearms ownership except when the State needs to exercise “police power” would be total rubbish to the Founders. “Police power” is just the sort of actions that all tyrants use to “justify” their control.

            Thus the very purpose of every man be armed is violated by the Illinois escape clause for government.

          • James

            Vicki, The Second Amendment simply says: the right…shall not be infringed. And the Illinois Constitution says: the right…shall not be infringed. A federal law which infringes on the right violates the Second Amendment, and, an Illinois law which infringes on the right violates Art. I, Sec. 22, of that state’s constitution.
            When the Chicago ordinance infringed on the right, the Illinois Constitution didn’t jump up and slap them in the face. And when the U.S. Congress passed the Gun Control Act of 1965 (GCA), the Second Amendment didn’t stop them either.
            If the GCA infringed on your right, you would file a suit in a federal District Court, alleging that such federal law violated the Second Amendment. If you live in Illinois and the Chicago ordinance violated your unalienable right, you would file suit in a state court alleging that the ordinance violated the Illinois Constitution’s Art. I, Sec 22.
            Laws don’t enforce themselves, to protect rights offended parties must file lawsuits.

          • James

            Vicke, Every state has “police power,” that does not mean they have the power to violate their state’s constitution or one’s unalienable rights. Police power just means they have power to arrest citizens who commit crimes. In Illinois, exercising one’s unalienable right to bear arms in the Chicago area, was declared a crime. That ordinance violated the state’s constitution. The remedy should have been to file suit in a state court, so alleging. Filing the suit in a federal District Court opened the door to federal regulation of the right within the states – the very ‘thing’ the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.

      • John Spinuzzi

        Christians are instructed by their Scripture to obey the laws of the ruling government(s). This is tempered, however, by a mandate to follow God’s instructions over that of (human) government. Christ told His disciples to be armed (Luke 22:35-38), not for defense against religious persecution, but for defense against lawless men. There is soon coming a time when each of us are going to have to decide which applies, as it is apparent that our present government is being run in a lawless fashion by ungodly and lawless men. -john

    • Don Tremaine

      Have you seen the movie Idiocracy? They tracked people by tatooing a scanable barcode on their arms.

      • http://GOGGLE vaksal


  • http://GOGGLE vaksal


  • Robert

    I love the way the right manages to accentuate this portion of the second amendment “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” and always conveniently ignores how it begins, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” and I am a moderate Independent who owned guns before I served our nation.

    • peterkuck

      Hey Robert. I love the way liberals ignore the Supreme Court decisions of Heller & McDonald that have reafirmed the rights we have had since the American Revolution. By the way a “well regulated militia” means well supplied and trained. You are NO moderate independant, you are a troll. Please read American history starting with 1770 and then come back and offer us your opinion.

    • James

      Robert, There was a period when the “militia” clause of the Second Amendment was viewed by the High Court as only restricting infringement on military-type weapons. However, in D.C. v. Heller, the Court held that the restriction applied to all weapons. The majority of Justices argued that every ablebodied man was required to keep an operable firearms in his possession for his possible duty in his state’s militia. Mr. Heller was not a militiaman. Since Heller, the “shall not be infringed” applies to all types of weapons. But read my above brief on the subject.

      • John Hardin

        Please cite the relevant Supreme Court cases where they held that view. And you lose if you cite US v. Miller, that is _not_ what the USSC held in that case.

        The militia clause of the 2nd Amendment is a _reason_ for the Right to be protected against government interference, it is _not_ a limitation on the _scope_ of that right. Please read this:

        • James

          John Hardin, There was a period of time, when the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment was interpreted by Congress to mean that only military-type weapons were protected from federal infringement. It was during that period when the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1965 were enacted (under its federal power to regulate commerce). (It was later noted that restricting the shipment of sawed-off shotguns in interstate commerce was actually a violation of the 2nd Amendment because in WWI, sawed-off shotguns were general issue.)
          The Heller Court ended that controversy, by calling attention to the fact that all American males were required to keep an operable firearm in their possession, for possible service in their state’s militia. In essence, the Heller Court held that the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not be infringed” now applies to all weapons, but only applied it to personal handguns, for one’s self defense, in the District of Columbia. This was extended to state law through the “liberty” clause of the 14th Amendment, in McDonald v. Chicago.

    • alpha-lemming

      Thank you for your service.

      Of equal (if not GREATER) importance to the “militia” was the “fail-safe” to the citizenry for protection from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT (having just escaped the blessings of King Georges’ totalitarian monarchy).

      • vicki

        One of the more interesting arguments from the gun ban group is that the 2nd amendment only protects the keep and bear arms of the militia. Of course if you study even simple English you can see that is false but just for the moment let us pretend they are right. So then who is the milita?

        United States Code Title 10 subtitle A > Part 1 > Chapter 13 > 311

        That pretty much covers it. So stop with the gun bans already.

        • James

          Vicki, The idea that the 2nd Amendment only protects militia-type weapons from infringement, has been in vogue since the early 30s. With a Supeme Court amenable to that, Congress passed the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun control Act of 1965. In D.C. v. Heller, Justice Stevens, in his dissent, made this argument again, that the amendment only protects militia-type weapons. However, the majority overruled, noting that all able-bodied men were required, if needed, to serve in their state’s militia, and were required to keep an operable firearm in their possession for that purpose, as well as for personal use for self-defense. The Court held that even though Mr. Heller was not a militiaman, he was entitled to keep a handgun in his home for his self defense. This ended the militia clause argument, the Court held the amendment’s “shall not be infringed” applies to all types of weapons.
          In footnote 23, the Heller Court cited and upheld its previous decisions in U.S. v. Cruikshank and others. This ended the Militia clause loophole which allowed Congress to regulate non-militia-type firearms. However, that decision did not change to whom the Second Amendment’s restriction applies, namely, the federal government.

    • Bill

      James Madison the 4th U.S. President said the militia was all qable bodied men, and as women have equal rights I guess it means them too.

  • 1Feartless1

    United States Code Title 10 subtitleA > Part 1 > Chapter 13 > 311


    (a) The militia of the United States consista of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and except as provided in section 313 of the title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard

    (b) The classes of the militia are-

    (1) the organized mitilia, which consists of the National Guard and the Navel Militia; and

    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Navel Militia

    • http://PeersonalLibraryDigest Michael G.

      I wonder about this… When I was in North Carolina I visited Fort Dobbs. I learned that the regular army (at that time the British) manned the fort. These soldiers got paid for what they did.
      There was another group called “Provencals” They got paid if there was money available. These are today’s National Guard.
      Then came the militia. They were local volunteers, and didn’t get paid. Things have changed to someextent, but this was the way in pre French and Indian War days.
      I figure if you can still pull a trigger, you are in the militia.

      • Cameron

        BINGO!!! The militia in Colonial terminology was (& still is) the general population capable of defending America from aggression. Hence, as far as I’m concerned, the Second Amendment guarantees American citizens the right to keep & bear military grade weapons. Try buying a 105mm recoilless rifle or a mortar & keeping it in your front yard, ready to load & fire. The Federal Gov’t would have a cow! They’re afraid some “kook” would tell them that they’re doing something un-Constitutional & try to stop them. With the price of ammo only a rich man or a crook could afford to load one though.

  • deadeye

    I am amazed at the selective opinions people use when embracing the first amendment and trashing the second. If we allow the infinite interpretation of the first amendment we are definately going to need the second.

    • Mike Austin,TX

      Why do you think the right to bear arms, 2nd amendment follows the 1st? Coincidence? I don’t think so. They experienced first hand what happens without it.

    • James

      Deadeye, the First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law respecting…,” which clearly applies to the federal government, and the Second Amendment is no different. The Bill of Rights is one document. The first eight amendments itemize rights, and the 9th Amendment says that restrictive theme applies to all rights, whether enumerated therein or not. And the 10th Amendment reminds Congress that “powers not delegated” (such as over the subject matter rights) are “reserved to the States…or to the people.”
      The newly created national government was not supposed to have any power whatsoever over our rights.

      • John Hardin

        Of course the 2nd Amendment is different. It does not have “congress shall make no law” so its scope is _not_ limited to congress.

        There is no justification for using the content of one amendment in this way to apply a limit to the meaning of another, unrelated amendment. The fact that we call the first ten amendments “the bill of rights” does _not_ alter that fact.

        • James

          John H., All due respect, but that’s silly. If the Founders had repeated “Congress shall make no law” in each of the first eight amendments, we’d have thought that was childish repetition. Assigning separate numbers to the amendments has caused some misunderstanding. Advocates of federal gun control love to view the Second Amendment out of its Bill of Rights context, then apply it to the States, which has caused tons of confusion.

      • Don Tremaine

        I believe that the 14th amendment was a result of some states not honoring the “Bill of Rights”, especially for the newly freed slaves. Clearly the 14th amendment provides that the “Bill of Rights” applies to state laws as well; this was its’ purpose.

        Anyone who believe that the militia means the national guard should look up when the 2nd amendment was written verses when the national guard was formed. Besides the national guard is controlled by the federal government not the states. What we have is the fox watching over the hen house. That argument is so broken.

        The other argument that “The people” means “The states” in the second amendment but not the remaining is also broken beacuse state and people are both used in the second amendment. If that were true it would have read:

        “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the states to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

        But that is not what it says!!!!!!!!

        • independant thinker

          “Anyone who believe that the militia means the national guard should look up when the 2nd amendment was written verses when the national guard was formed. Besides the national guard is controlled by the federal government not the states.”

          There was a time the Guard could have been considered a part of the militia. That time ended when the Guard was nationalized by either Carter or Reagan I do not remember which. The Guard is now considered a part of the army reserves so you are correct in stating the Natioonal Guard is not the militia.

        • James

          Don, the Supreme Court has never held that the 14th Amendment provides for the Bill of Rights to apply to the States. State constitutions have their own bills of rights. Fourty-four of them have clauses similar to the 2nd Amendment. No state law has ever been held violative of the 2nd Amendment. You are identifying the right with that amendment, you want the 2nd Amendment to apply to the States so they will have the right, but they had the right before the Bill of Rights existed. The right to bear arms is not a constitutional right, it is not a 2nd Amendment right, it is a gift from God, not the government.

      • Vicki

        James writes:
        “The 10th Amendment reminds Congress that “powers not delegated” (such as over the subject matter rights) are “reserved to the States…or to the people.” ”

        It is interesting that James left out a rather important piece of the 10 th.

        “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. ”

        That little piece “..nor prohibited by it to the States..”
        Which clearly shows the Founders intent to limit at least State governments with what? With the parts of the Bill that do not say “Congress shall make no law….” That would of course be the other 8. 2nd am, 5th am etc…

        Much case law since Cruikshank has decided that much of the First shall also apply to state and local government thru the 14 amendment.

      • Vicki

        James is correct in on thing however not the way he intended. One of the powers delegated to the FedGov was indeed with respect to rights. FedGov is tasked with protecting those rights from abrigement or infringement by state or local government. Hence FedGov is REQUIRED to defend peoples rights. Now let us look again at which amendments describe rights.

        2nd. 4th, 6th. 7th, 9th all even contain the word right or rights of the people

        3rd, 5th, 8th all describe things not to be done (By fedgov) directly implying the existence of rights. Some (including me) think that 5,8 also apply to all governments and one of the delegated duties of the FedGov is to protect the people from state and local government abridgment of 3, 5, 8.

        9th specifically warns that there are a LOT more rights that belong to the people.

        10th specifically reminds fedgov that the states and people control any POWERS not specifically delegated to FedGov nor prohibited to the states.

        Note again that 10 talks of powers not rights. Only PEOPLE have rights. Government only has powers that the people delegate to those entities.

      • Vicki

        My bad. I missed one. The 1st does indeed have the word right in it. Intersestingly it is the right of people to assemble peaceably…

        Funny how states and local governments keep requiring permits but then again the 1st does say CONGRESS shall make no law…..

        • James

          Vicki, the five most ignored words in the Bill of Rights are “Congress shall make no law.” The whole amendment reads: “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.”
          That does no mean that, henceforth, citizens within the States now have those rights. They won those rights in the Revolutionary War and were exercising them before the national government was created. The primary fear the States had, when considering the creation of a national government (to settle disputes between the states) was that their powers might be used to legislate over rights. Hence, the Bill of Rights. You are ignoring the Founders’ discussions of this at the Constitutional Convention, all the Supreme Court decisions that disagree with you, and all fifty state constitutions.

          • Vicki

            I’m not ignoring them. Like you I noticed that they are there. I ALSO notice they are not in the 2nd amendment. Therefore the 2nd is a restriction on all government, Fed, State, Local. Its wording is clear. ALL of the very discussions you mention support the understanding that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
            At all. Ever.

          • James

            Vicki, your mind has locked up. In U.S. v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment applies to the national government, not the States, and the D.C. v. Heller Court reaffirmed that decision.
            Your problem, as I see it, is that you believe the Bill of Rights IS our rights, and if it doesn’t apply to the States, then no one would have any rights. Since rights existed before the Bill of Rights (and the national government) were created, that stance should seem absurd. Your defense of our rights is admirable, but your belief that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or…the right…to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” somehow applies to the States that slapped it onto Congress, is absurd.

  • J.M.R.

    let the libs give up their guns, then when crime runs rampant they will be crying for the police that are minutes away, then when they do get there it will be too late

    • Cameron

      That’s what I tell my sister & brother-in-law, but they still refuse to give up their guns that they never use for ANYTHING.

      • http://?? Joe H.

        That is their RIGHT! If you are stating you are trying to get them to give them up, Who the hell are you to try to abridge their rights???

  • Stacy

    interesting that people claim our rights such as the second admendment only apply to the federal level. i want them to tell me how we can live in the US and not be subject to the Constitution! how we live here and a State can deny a person their Constitutional rights because the State law trumps the Constitution or the Constitution does not apply to the State?

    since the Constituition covers the entire US, how can a State deny a person their Constitutional rights? i am not speaking about court decisions by a bunch of elitists. i am talking common sense and logic!

    • James

      Stacy, You are flat wrong. The U.S. Constitution created the federal government, delegated certain powers to it, and restricted it from making any laws concerning our rights. Except for a few words, it has no application whatsoever within the States.

      • independant thinker

        But the federal courts have consistantly applied it to the states concerning any display that could be considered religious being put on state owned property. If the First amendment can be applied to the states in this manner then the Second amendment applies as well.

        • James

          Independent T., You are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights purpose. Rights are unalienable and existed before the federal government AND the Bill of Rights. When States are forced by courts to remove religious displays from public buildings and grounds, it is supposedly because of the nebulous ‘separation of church and state’ which, actually, doesn’t exist. It is based upon the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” however, that is a restriction on federal laws, respecting religion, not the right itself. People who exercise their religious rights, are not exercising a First Amendment right, the right is unalienable, it is dependent on any constitution for its existence.

        • James

          Independent T., You are confusing rights with the Bill of Rights purpose. Rights are unalienable and existed before the federal government AND the Bill of Rights. When States are forced by courts to remove religious displays from public buildings and grounds, it is supposedly because of the nebulous ‘separation of church and state’ which, actually, doesn’t exist. It is based upon the First Amendment’s “Congress shall make no law,” however, that is a restriction on federal laws, respecting religion, not the right itself. People who exercise their religious rights, are not exercising a First Amendment right, the right is unalienable, it is not dependent on any constitution for its existence.

          • independant thinker

            You miss my point. If the feds can force the limitations placed on the federal government onto the state governments in the case of the first amendment they can force the states to honor the second amendment in the same way.

          • James

            Independent, When States are forced to remove religious plagues and monuments, that has nothing to do with the First Amendment. if has to do with what religious groups agreed to when they signed up for their 501(c)3 tax exemptions. They agreed to refrain from political activity. So far, one church, in the New England States, has lost its tax exemption for speaking out against government policies. Bob Jones University didn’t apply for a 501(c)3 tax exemption, but because one of its students was there on a federal grant, it’s now under attack for speaking out against federal policies.

      • John Hardin

        …and then the 14th Amendment added a bunch of stuff after “No State shall …”

        Everything occurring after that point _must_ be interpreted in light of that alteration.

        • James

          John H. The 14th Amendment’s “No State shall” is not an alteration of the Constitution’s Bill of Rights. It was enacted in 1868, just three years after the Civil War ended, and three years after the just freed slaves were made citizens by the 13th Amendment of 1865. It says “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
          This applied to the just freed Blacks, and means that States must apply their due process of law equally to all citizens, regardless of race. U.S. v. Cruikshank was such a case. Blacks had been deprived of their firearms, without due process of law, and they assumed that action violated the 2nd Amendment. The Court ruled that it did not, and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. Neither party had asked the Court to view this action from the “due process of law” clause of the 14th Amendment, and courts don’t advise parties how best to pursue their case.

  • Stacy

    the Swiss have it right. it is required that every household be armed.

    • ReeRee Smith

      Stacy, yes the Swiss do. That is why Swiss Cheese has so many holes in it.From everyone shooting at each other.

  • Stacy

    being necessary to the security of a free State. means, liberty and freedom from tyrany. Benjamin Franklin was asked by a lady, ” what sir, kind of gubmint have you given us?” and Franklin replied, ” a republic maam, if you can keep it”!

    what he meant was that it is our responsibility to control gubmint and prevent the elitists from grabbing power away from the people . that is why our founding fathers put limits on the power of the gubmint. unfortunately, politicians have been stealing it for centuries and noone has stopped them. the second admendment is the last guarrantee to stop tyrany.

    • James

      Stacy, The 2nd Amendment is just words on paper, how does that stop tyranny?

  • s c

    There’s an outside chance that Than Franthithco doesn’t need to be wiped off the map. Sooner or later, even communities that are basically off-the-chart have to bow to common sense.
    Good for them – whether they like it or not. Now, if we could get the retards and the career SOBs in Washington to rise to the level of the Thity by the Bay. I never left my heart there. It is so very strange that that city can have more of a ‘heart’ than the toilet bowl we call Washington.

    • dan az

      thity by the sea thats good havent stopped laughing yet thanks!

      • ReeRee Smith

        DAN AZ, you can stop laughing. S C was talking about a toilet in D.C. that is FULL of it. That,s not funny because that those in that Thity presently Rule our lives.

  • Cameron

    It is the inherent nature of Man to try to rule everything around him. Read Genesis in the Bible. The only way for elitists to be sure no one can object to their “benevolent” rule is to be sure no one has the means of self defense. Ergo only the military & police should have guns, & then only when on the job, doing whatever the ruling elitists want done. I’m sorry to disappoint anybody, but I just don’t fit under anybody’s thumb.

    • James

      Genesis 1:28 reads: “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
      “Them” refers to Adam and Eve.

  • Marilyn

    So, “the people” give their guns to the Federal Government. You bet your azz that the President will be protected by people with guns. You bet your azz that anyone who needs body guards will have guns. And, real Criminals will have guns. The prigs who want to interpret the 2nd Amendment to their own advantage will have a real uprising when that happens and they know it. Want a militia, there will be one hell of an unorganized militia when there is an attempt to remove guns from private homes! One country demands that each home has a hand gun or firearm. That country has the lowest crime rate in the world. Get your fingers busy with Google and find out what country that is.

  • Stephen Russell

    Inspector Harry Callahan would be pleased, he keeps his 44 Magnum model 29 at the Ready or his Automagnum.
    Thanks SF for seeing the light.
    Now watch crime drop in city esp Tenderloin area

  • http://gmail i41

    Unless the UN mandates no slugs, just flash and bang. Try and see how many reloading supplies after Nov and even now.

    • Earl

      Eh…………Screw the UN, We’ll fight therm too!

    • James

      Let’s remember that when President Bush invaded Iraq, he was enforcing several resolutions of the United Nations, none of which had anything to do with the 9-11 attack.

  • Mark

    Fear any government, that fears your gun. For they will try to take your guns and make you helpless towards crime and towards governmental tyranny. I may die the day they come to get mine, but I won’t be alone because they will die first.

  • dietitian

    Thanks for the post. My spouse and i have generally noticed that almost all people are needing to lose weight simply because they wish to appear slim and also attractive. Having said that, they do not constantly realize that there are many benefits for losing weight in addition. Doctors claim that obese people suffer from a variety of health conditions that can be directly attributed to their own excess weight. The good thing is that people who sadly are overweight in addition to suffering from different diseases can reduce the severity of the illnesses by way of losing weight. You’ll be able to see a slow but notable improvement with health while even a small amount of losing weight is achieved.

    One thing I’d prefer to discuss is that fat reduction plan fast is possible by the correct diet and exercise. Someone’s size not only affects appearance, but also the entire quality of life. Self-esteem, despression symptoms, health risks, as well as physical abilities are influenced in weight gain. It is possible to do everything right whilst still having a gain. Should this happen, a problem may be the reason. While a lot of food and never enough exercise are usually responsible, common health conditions and widely used prescriptions can certainly greatly add to size. Many thanks for your post in this article.

    I learned more new stuff on this fat loss issue. 1 issue is that good nutrition is extremely vital when dieting. An enormous reduction in bad foods, sugary foods, fried foods, sweet foods, red meat, and bright flour products could be necessary. Retaining wastes harmful bacteria, and harmful toxins may prevent targets for losing fat. While specific drugs briefly solve the situation, the bad side effects are not worth it, and they also never give more than a short-lived solution. It can be a known undeniable fact that 95% of fad diets fail. Many thanks for sharing your opinions on this web site.

    Thanks for the guidelines shared on your blog. Yet another thing I would like to mention is that fat reduction is not all about going on a dietary fad and trying to lose as much weight as possible in a couple of weeks. The most effective way to shed pounds is by having it gradually and using some basic guidelines which can allow you to make the most from the attempt to shed weight. You may be aware and be following these tips, nevertheless reinforcing know-how never does any damage.

    I believe that avoiding packaged foods could be the first step for you to lose weight. They may taste beneficial, but prepared foods have got very little nutritional value, making you take in more just to have enough power to get with the day. If you are constantly taking in these foods, moving over to whole grain products and other complex carbohydrates will help you have more vigor while feeding on less. Interesting blog post.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
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.