Precious Metals Forum

Go Back   Precious Metals Forum > Bunker Talk > BSTS

Like Tree20Likes
  • 7 Post By ancona
  • 2 Post By DCFusor
  • 3 Post By ancona
  • 3 Post By benjamen
  • 1 Post By dontdeBasemebro
  • 1 Post By PMBug
  • 1 Post By 11C1P
  • 2 Post By DCFusor

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-09-2013, 01:01 PM   #1
Yellow Jacket
 
ancona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Waaay south
Posts: 3,370
Liked: 2046 times
Second Amendment

I found this little gem at the Tenth Amendment Center on-line, so I don't think they would mind its dissemination. The article explains that since teh bill of rights is worded in a very particular way, it does not in fact grant any rights, it merely reinforces that rights we already have cannot be infringed on by congress. It is a very interesting read and worthy of discussion.

Following the recent school shooting in Connecticut, American citizens have once again displayed their total ignorance concerning the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment. Facebook postings, comments to so-called news articles and letters to the editor are calling for repeal of the Second Amendment. These individuals believe the right to own a firearm is based on the Second Amendment and the right will vanish if the Amendment can be repealed. Unless the Second Amendment created the right, then repeal of the Amendment cannot constitutionally abolish the right.

Following the Federal [Constitutional] Convention of 1787 and the subsequent ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the several States began submitting amendments to Congress for consideration. By September of 1789, Congress had reduced approximately 210 separate amendments to 12. The amendments were inserted into a congressional resolution and submitted to the several States for consideration. Of these, numbers 2-12 were ratified by the States in 1791 and became the so-called Bill of Rights.

A little known fact about this resolution is that it contained a preamble declaring the purpose of the proposed amendments. Most modern editions of the Bill of Rights either do not contain the preamble or only include the last paragraph. The most important paragraph is the first one because it discloses the intent of the proposed amendments.

A review of this paragraph shows that the sole purpose of the proposed amendments was to prevent the federal government from “misconstruing or abusing its powers.” To accomplish this, “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” were being proposed. The amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints or limitations on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from usurping its constitutional powers. Every clause of the Bill of Rights, without exception, is either a declaratory statement or a restrictive provision.

If the Bill of Rights had granted rights, then the word “granted” would have to appear each and every time a right was being established. A review of the Bill of Rights shows that the word “granted” does not appear in any Amendment.

In reality, the Bill of Rights placed additional or secondary restraints on the powers of the federal government concerning the rights of the people and powers reserved to the States. That is why the words “no,” “not” and “nor” appear throughout the Amendments instead of the word “granted.”

Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

In order to help explain this constitutional principle, I reluctantly decided to reference a United States Supreme Court case from 1875. Normally, I would not cite a court case to support a constitutional principle because too many opinions do not reflect the true intent of the Framers. However, I decided to make an exception because this decision states this constitutional principle clearly and concisely and has never been overturned.

In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence. The Court also ruled that the Amendments were restraints on the powers of the federal government and it is the duty of States to secure the individual rights of the American people.

One of the most definitive and succinct interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:


Become a member and support the TAC!
“The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ 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 [Federal] Government…”

The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.

Note: There is a school of thought that the Fourteenth Amendment made, through a doctrine known as incorporation, the Second Amendment applicable to the individual States. Since the Second Amendment did not create a right, then repeal of the Amendment could not abolish the right in the individual States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
benjamen, BigJim, Cronus and 4 others like this.
__________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer - Occam
ancona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 04:10 PM   #2
Yellow Jacket
 
DCFusor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Floyd, Virginia
Posts: 1,682
Liked: 1233 times
Yeah, but since when does our government give a flying fsck about the law?

I went down to Lowes the other day to pick up some PVC pipe and caps and glue since it seems wise to stash a few things in hard to find places. Turns out there'd been a big run on that store, and one of the floorwalkers told me a lot of people were doing the same thing - for guns, ammo, and shiney. Seems like a lot of people think hiding some for eventual black market sales at far higher than current prices might be a really great low risk investment.
ancona and ADK like this.
DCFusor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2013, 04:15 PM   #3
Yellow Jacket
 
ancona's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Waaay south
Posts: 3,370
Liked: 2046 times
Since you posted that, I am going to talk to a friend of mine who has a like mind if he wants to build some "waterproof valuables lockers" out of 8" PVC with end caps screwed in to a glued bushing. I'll bet if we set up at the next gun show we could sell every single one for $99 or somewhere in that range. Perhaps two for $175. i could go to Fergusons Supply and get a grand worth of PVC and fittings which would make over a hundred. I could make all different sizes as well.
DCFusor, ADK and Jay like this.
__________________
All things being equal, the simplest answer is quite often the correct answer - Occam
ancona is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-12-2013, 08:15 AM   #4
Jay
Yellow Jacket
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,511
Liked: 671 times
Originally Posted by ancona View Post:
Since you posted that, I am going to talk to a friend of mine who has a like mind if he wants to build some "waterproof valuables lockers" out of 8" PVC with end caps screwed in to a glued bushing. I'll bet if we set up at the next gun show we could sell every single one for $99 or somewhere in that range. Perhaps two for $175. i could go to Fergusons Supply and get a grand worth of PVC and fittings which would make over a hundred. I could make all different sizes as well.
prolly do well! Can't get eight inch here, only six.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 09:21 AM   #5
Super Moderator
 
benjamen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Migratory
Posts: 1,620
Liked: 685 times
http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/journalis...ee-zone-signs/

This guy goes around to journalists, politicians, ect. that push an anti-firearm platform and asks them to place a sign in their front yard that proudly proclaims “Citizens Against Senseless Violence. THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN FREE!”.

Oddly, he has little success.
bushi, Cronus and HCA1961 like this.
__________________
I drive men mad
For love of me,
Easily beaten,
Never free.

PMBug 101 *** Forum Rules
benjamen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 10:14 AM   #6
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
that was hillarious! Talking about hypocrisy/stupidity...
__________________
“...the issue which has swept down the centuries and will have to be fought sooner or later is the People versus the Banks.
Lord Acton
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 12:14 PM   #7
Predaceous stink bug
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 110
Liked: 54 times
One can move into the 2nd amendment town, being built with, for and funded by AR manufacturing. Like minded people making stand.

http://iiicitadel.com/index.html
drAGonfly47 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 01:35 PM   #8
Jay
Yellow Jacket
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 1,511
Liked: 671 times
Originally Posted by drAGonfly47 View Post:
One can move into the 2nd amendment town, being built with, for and funded by AR manufacturing. Like minded people making stand.

http://iiicitadel.com/index.html
as per my comment on a previous thread, wonder how long it will take Obamas predator drones to take the town out?
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 06:44 PM   #9
Ground Beetle
 
bushi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 971
Liked: 554 times
Originally Posted by drAGonfly47 View Post:
One can move into the 2nd amendment town, being built with, for and funded by AR manufacturing. Like minded people making stand.

http://iiicitadel.com/index.html
...yeah, they can already paint a huge target on their backs as well.. I am with DCFusor in this regard, you want to stay low and dont agitate the crocodile, that is the Govt., Inc. - they are better organized, have nearly infinite resources vs. any other group/individual, and open confrontation, frankly is a suicide. Much better to wait quietly, until the feckers bankrupt themselves, regardless how much patience & frustration will it take.
__________________
“...the issue which has swept down the centuries and will have to be fought sooner or later is the People versus the Banks.
Lord Acton
bushi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2013, 07:01 PM   #10
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 494
Liked: 280 times
Originally Posted by drAGonfly47 View Post:
One can move into the 2nd amendment town, being built with, for and funded by AR manufacturing. Like minded people making stand.

http://iiicitadel.com/index.html
They might as well call it Waco II since that it how it will be treated. It is probably going to end up crawling with fed agitators anyways.


What really worries me is that, with all the attention being put on very unpopular gun laws, what kind of crap are they sneaking through the back door? Watch out next month when the debt ceiling rolls around again...
ancona likes this.
dontdeBasemebro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2013, 06:26 AM   #11
Golden Cockroach
 
PMBug's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: In Scrooge McDuck's vault
Posts: 7,017
Liked: 2443 times
Quote :
Wyoming lawmakers have proposed a new bill that, if passed, would nullify any federal restrictions on guns, threatening to jail federal agents attempting to confiscate guns, ammunition magazines or ammunition.

The bill – HB0104 – states that “any federal law which attempts to ban a semi-automatic firearm or to limit the size of a magazine of a firearm or other limitation on firearms in this state shall be unenforceable in Wyoming.”

The bill is sponsored by eight Wyoming state representatives ad two state senators. If passed, the bill would declare any federal gun regulation created on or after January 1, 2013 to be unenforceable within the state.

In addition, the bill states would charge federal officials attempting to enforce a federal gun law within the state with a felony – “subject to imprisonment for not more less than one (1) year and one (1) day or more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both.”
...
http://washingtonexaminer.com/wyomin...3#.UPIdkHc847p

Quote :
As I wrote on Jan. 11, Jackson County Kentucky Sheriff Denny Peyman has made it clear that gun laws which violate the United States Constitution or the Kentucky Constitution will not be enforced in his county.
On Jan. 12, he followed this up with a press conference in which he explained that a Sheriff's powers are predominant over the powers of federal and state agents. When he says these things he drives gun-grabbers batty because he says them with the conviction that rests on knowledge, and he has no intention of backing down.

During the press conference, he took time to explain his powers as sheriff:
Quote :
I am responsible for the people inside this county. I am the highest elected official in this county, and this is the only opportunity the people have to speak for themselves and say 'this is what we want.'

I can ask federal people to leave, they have to leave. I can ask state people to leave, they have to leave. ...[And] it doesn't matter what [new laws] Obama passes, the sheriff has more power than the federal people.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Jackson-County
ancona likes this.
__________________
The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. - Lao Tzu

Important stuff: PMBug 101 * Forum Guidelines * Support PMBug
PMBug is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 01:06 PM   #12
Ground Beetle
 
11C1P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 959
Liked: 502 times
Originally Posted by bushi View Post:
...yeah, they can already paint a huge target on their backs as well.. I am with DCFusor in this regard, you want to stay low and dont agitate the crocodile, that is the Govt., Inc. - they are better organized, have nearly infinite resources vs. any other group/individual, and open confrontation, frankly is a suicide. Much better to wait quietly, until the feckers bankrupt themselves, regardless how much patience & frustration will it take.
Not to mention, having up to 7,000 families (15-40K+ people?), all being fiercely proud self sufficient freedom loving Americans being walled up inside a medieval themed gated community. Seems a bit counterintuitive, but I still wish them luck. I just don't expect things to go well in a regulated community of people who don't like regulated communities.
dontdeBasemebro likes this.
11C1P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:04 PM   #13
Yellow Jacket
 
DCFusor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Floyd, Virginia
Posts: 1,682
Liked: 1233 times
" I just don't expect things to go well in a regulated community of people who don't like regulated communities. "

Yeah, kind of a cognitive dissonance, eh?
dontdeBasemebro and ancona like this.
DCFusor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:47 PM   #14
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 494
Liked: 280 times
Originally Posted by 11C1P View Post:
I just don't expect things to go well in a regulated community of people who don't like regulated communities.


The "Survivor" TV show should be warning enough.
dontdeBasemebro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 06:22 PM   #15
Ground Beetle
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 501
Liked: 304 times
Originally Posted by dontdeBasemebro View Post:


The "Survivor" TV show should be warning enough.
Amen brother. I've lived in a CC&R community and you would be better off living with cannibals. I could easily imagine the world ending and one of them knocking on the door and saying "you need to mow your lawn"....
Aubuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® from Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Content of PMBug.com copyright © 2011 - 2019 Measuring Up. All Rights Reserved.