[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic? War in Ukraine Turns on Russia what happened during total solar eclipse Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage Earth is Scorched with Heat Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman Vibe Shift A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound. Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks Questioning the Big Bang James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go Early humans had sex with chimps O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp. Biblical Contradictions (Alleged) Catholic Church Praising Lucifer Raising the Knife One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make.. Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship) Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war: {Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture. Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY Bible Help Libertysflame Database Updated Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit! Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney. Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End? What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery! 2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years 2024 and beyond in prophecy Questions This Speech Just Broke the Internet This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God! The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone Status: Not Logged In; Sign In U.S. Constitution See other U.S. Constitution Articles Title: Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Source: 9th Circuit Court URL Source: [None] Published: Jun 9, 2016 Author: Circuit Judge W. Fletcher Post Date: 2016-06-09 16:48:27 by nolu chan Keywords: None Views: 27104 Comments: 127 Peruta v San Diego Cty, no 2nd Amdt right to concealed Carry Peruta et al v County of San Diego et al, 10-56971 (9th Cir, 9 Jul 2016) OPINION W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: Under California law, a member of the general public may not carry a concealed weapon in public unless he or she has been issued a license. An applicant for a license must satisfy a number of conditions. Among other things, the applicant must show “good cause” to carry a concealed firearm. California law authorizes county sheriffs to establish and publish policies defining good cause. The sheriffs of San Diego and Yolo Counties published policies defining good cause as requiring a particularized reason why an applicant needs a concealed firearm for self-defense. Appellants, who live in San Diego and Yolo Counties, allege that they wish to carry concealed firearms in public for self-defense, but that they do not satisfy the good cause requirements in their counties. They contend that their counties’ definitions of good cause violate their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. They particularly rely on the Supreme Court’s decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public. Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest #1. To: nolu chan (#0) "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public." The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-09   17:18:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #2. To: misterwhite (#1) The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller said nothing about concealed carry. Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. Their decisions, of course, only apply to their jurisdiction. Heller incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the Federal District of Columbia in 2008, but left the status of incorporation against the States undeclared. Opinion of the Court by Scalia. McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment against the States in 2010. Opinion of the Court by Alito. While the right to keep and bear arms in protected by the 2nd Amendment, the amendment does not state, claim, or imply that it either created or defined the right to keep and bear arms. The Framers felt no need to define what were, to them, the well known terms of English common law which had prevailed in the colonies and which were carried forth in the States after the revolution. The 2nd Amendment makes no allusion of the right to carry concealed weapons. I know of no law specifically for or against concealed carry from that era. The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana. At the time, the 2nd Amendment did not apply to the States. Concealed carry may just not have been an issue back before the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Heller and McDonald make clear that the right to keep and bear arms is rooted in the English common law and that "the right to keep and bear arms is not 'a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.'" Under Heller and McDonald it appears that there is nothing prohibiting a State from regulating or prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns. Prohibiting the carrying of handguns was held unconstitutional, but allowing open carry satisfies that. Of course, if Hillary appoints three or four justices to the Supreme Court, it may find that "common sense" regulations disarming United States civilians are lawfully justified by some emanation from some penumbra. McDonald at 20-21: Heller makes it clear that this right is “deeply rooted inthis Nation’s history and tradition.” Glucksberg, supra, at 721 (internal quotation marks omitted). Heller explored the right’s origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self defense, 554 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 19–20), and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 20). Blackstone’s assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III’s attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760’s and 1770’s “provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.” [16] Id., at ___ (slip op., at 21); see also L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 137–143(1999) (hereinafter Levy). The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights. “During the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or selectmilitia was pervasive in Antifederalist rhetoric.” __________ [16] For example, an article in the Boston Evening Post stated: “For it is certainly beyond human art and sophistry, to prove the British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights, and, who live in a province where the law requires them to be equip’d with arms, &c. are guilty of an illegal act, in calling upon one another to be provided with them, as the law directs.” Boston Evening Post, Feb. 6, 1769, in Boston Under Military Rule 1768–1769, p. 61 (1936) (emphasis deleted). McDonald at 39-40: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatorymeasures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here.Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. McDonald at 40: Municipal respondents suggest that the Second Amendment right differs from the rights heretofore incorporated because the latter were “valued for[their] own sake.” Id., at 33. But we have never previously suggested that incorporation of a right turns on whether it has intrinsic as opposed to instrumental value, and quite a few of the rights previously held to be incorporated—for example the right to counsel and the right to confront and subpoena witnesses—are clearly instrumental by any measure. Moreover, this contention repackages one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller, i.e., that the scope of the Second Amendment right is defined by the immediate threat that led to the inclusion of that right in the Bill of Rights. In Heller, we recognized that the codification of this right was prompted by fear that the Federal Government would disarm and thus disable the militias, but we rejected the suggestion that the right was valued only as a means of preserving the militias. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26). On the contrary, we stressed that the right was also valued because the possession of firearms was thought to be essential for self-defense. As we put it, self-defense was “the central component of the right itself.” Ibid. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   1:29:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #3. To: misterwhite (#1) Meaning the lower courts are free to interpret "bear arms" as they see fit. And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted. Roscoe  posted on  2016-06-10   2:48:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #4. To: nolu chan (#2) "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:06:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #5. To: Roscoe (#3) "And to overturn existing state laws at will. Just like the morons wanted." Yep. And if the issue some day makes it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the composition of the court is liberal, they will rule that concealed carry is not protected -- and THAT ruling will apply to all 50 states. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-10   9:10:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #6. To: misterwhite (#4) And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). The Kentucky constitution of 1799 provided "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The Kentucky law of 1813 stated, "that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars...." The Kentucky Court of Appeals struck the law down as repugnant to the Kentucky Constitution. The Federal Constitution was not at issue. Bliss v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 12 Littell 90 (Ky. 1822) This was an indictment founded on the act of the legislature of this state, "to prevent persons in this commonwealth from wearing concealed arms." The act provides, that any person in this commonwealth, who shall hereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journey, shall be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars; which may be recovered in any court having jurisdiction of like sums, by action of debt, or on presentment of a grand jury. The indictment, in the words of the act, charges Bliss with having worn concealed as a weapon, a sword in a cane. Bliss was found guilty of the charge, and a fine of one hundred dollars assessed by the jury, and judgment was thereon rendered by the court. To reverse that judgment, Bliss appealed to this court. 2. In argument the judgment was assailed by the counsel of Bliss, exclusively on the ground of the act, on which the indictment is founded, being in conflict with the twenty third section of the tenth article of the constitution of this state. That section provides, "that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." The provision contained in this section, perhaps, is as well calculated to secure to the citizens the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, as any that could have been adopted by the makers of the constitution. If the right be assailed, immaterial through what medium, whether by an act of the legislature or in any other form, it is equally opposed to the comprehensive import of the section. The legislature is no where expressly mentioned in the section; but the language employed is general, without containing any expression restricting its import to any particular department of government; and in the twenty eighth section of the same article of the constitution, it is expressly declared, "that every thing in that article is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and that all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to the constitution, shall be void." It was not, however, contended by the attorney for the commonwealth, that it would be competent for the legislature, by the enactment of any law, to prevent the citizens from bearing arms either in defence of themselves or the state; but a distinction was taken between a law prohibiting the exercise of the right, and a law merely regulating the manner of exercising that right; and whilst the former was admitted to be incompatible with the constitution, it was insisted, that the latter is not so, and under that distinction, and by assigning the act in question a place in the latter description of laws, its consistency with the constitution was attempted to be maintained. 3. That the provisions of the act in question do not import an entire destruction of the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the state, will not be controverted by the court; for though the citizens are forbid wearing weapons concealed in the manner described in the act, they may, nevertheless, bear arms in any other admissible form. But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form--it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and [Volume 5, Page 213] such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. We may possibly be told, that though a law of either description, may be enacted consistently with the constitution, it would be incompatible with that instrument to enact laws of both descriptions. But if either, when alone, be consistent with the constitution, which, it may be asked, would be incompatible with that instrument, if both were enacted? The law first enacted would not be; for, as the argument supposes either may be enacted consistent with the constitution, that which is first enacted must, at the time of enactment, be consistent with the constitution; and if then consistent, it cannot become otherwise, by any subsequent act of the legislature. It must, therefore, be the latter act, which the argument infers would be incompatible with the constitution. But suppose the order of enactment were reversed, and instead of being the first, that which was first, had been the last; the argument, to be consistent, should, nevertheless, insist on the last enactment being in conflict with the constitution. So, that the absurd consequence would thence follow, of making the same act of the legislature, either consistent with the constitution, or not so, according as it may precede or follow some other enactment of a different import. Besides, by insisting on the previous act producing any effect on the latter, the argument implies that the previous one operates as a partial restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms, and proceeds on the notion, that by prohibiting the exercise of the residue of right, not affected by the first act, the latter act comes in collision with the constitution. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution. 4. Hence, we infer, that the act upon which the indictment against Bliss is founded, is in conflict with the constitution; and if so, the result is obvious--the result is what the constitution has declared it shall be, that the act is void. And if to be incompatible with the constitution makes void the act, we must have been correct, throughout the examination of this case, in treating the question of compatibility, as one proper to be decided by the court. For it is emphatically the duty of the court to decide what the law is; and how is the law to be decided, unless it be known? and how can it be known without ascertaining, from a comparison with the constitution, whether there exist such an incompatibility between the acts of the legislature and the constitution, as to make void the acts? A blind enforcement of every act of the legislature, might relieve the court from the trouble and responsibility of deciding on the consistency of the legislative acts with the constitution; but the court would not be thereby released from its obligations to obey the mandates of the constitution, and maintain the paramount authority of that instrument; and those obligations must cease to be acknowledged, or the court become insensible to the impressions of moral sentiment, before the provisions of any act of the legislature, which in the opinion of the court, conflict with the constitution, can be enforced. Whether or not an act of the legislature conflicts with the constitution, is, at all times, a question of great delicacy, and deserves the most mature and deliberate consideration of the court. But though a question of delicacy, yet as it is a judicial one, the court would be unworthy its station, were it to shrink from deciding it, whenever in the course of judicial examination, a decision becomes material to the right in contest. The court should never, on slight implication or vague conjecture, pronounce the legislature to have transcended its authority in the enactment of law; but when a clear and strong conviction is entertained, that an act of the legislature is incompatible with the constitution, there is no alternative for the court to pursue, but to declare that conviction, and pronounce the act inoperative and void. And such is the conviction entertained by a majority of the court, (Judge Mills dissenting,) in relation to the act in question. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:04:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #7. To: misterwhite (#4) Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-10   16:50:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #8. To: nolu chan, misterwhite, roscoe, Y'ALL --- Three Amigos against our gun rights... (#7) nolu chan (#2) --- "The earliest concealed carry laws appear to have cropped up in 1813 in Kentucky and Louisiana" And I believe those laws were against concealed carry, since the only reason to conceal a weapon was evil intent (or some such reasoning). --- misterwhite (#4) NOLU ----Georgia had a statute of 1837 overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1846. Here the court found banning concealed carry was acceptable, but banning open carry was not. The Georgia case involved both the Federal and State constitutions. A law which merely inhibits the wearing of certain weapons in a concealed manner is valid. But so far as it cuts off the exercise of the right of the citizen altogether to bear arms, or, under the color of prescribing the mode, renders the right itself useless, it is in conflict with the Constitution, and void. And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   19:57:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #9. To: nolu chan (#7) The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-10   20:14:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #10. To: tpaine (#9) The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there anything in its terms which restricts its meaning. The preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that they originated in the fear that the powers of the general government were not sufficiently limited. Several of the States in their act of ratification recommended that further restrictive clauses should he added. And in the first session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of the Constitution. But admitting all this, does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures. This right is too dear to be confided to a republican legislature. Questions under some of these amendments, it is true, can only arise under the laws and Constitution of the United States. But there are other provisions in them, which were never intended to be thus restricted, but were designed for the benefit of every citizen of the Union in all courts and in all places; and the people of the several States, in ratifying them in their respective State conventions, have virtually adopted them AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The 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. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The 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.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:11:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #11. To: tpaine, misterwhite, roscoe (#8) And, of course, the Constitution last mentioned above in Nunn, ---- was the US CONSTITUTION. Which infuriates you three amigos, who advocate that States can infringe on our gun rights. Of course, Nunn found it constitutional to ban concealed carry. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247-48 (1833) Opinion of the Court, Chief Justice Marshall (7-0) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/32/243/case.html U.S. Supreme Court Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) ON WRIT OF ERROR TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE WESTERN SHORE OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND Syllabus The provision in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the Government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of individual States. [...] Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court. [...] The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The 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. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. If these propositions be correct, the fifth amendment must be understood as restraining the power of the General Government, not as applicable to the States. [...] The counsel for the plaintiff in error insists that the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several States against the undue exercise of power by their respective State governments, as well as against that which might be attempted by their General Government. In support of this argument he relies on the inhibitions contained in the tenth section of the first article. We think that section affords a strong, if not a conclusive, argument in support of the opinion already indicated by the court. The preceding section contains restrictions which are obviously intended for the exclusive purpose of restraining the exercise of power by the departments of the General Government. Some of them use language applicable only to Congress, others are expressed in general terms. The third clause, for example, declares, that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." No language can be more general, yet the demonstration is complete that it applies solely to the Government of the United States. In addition to the general arguments furnished by the instrument itself, some of which have been already suggested, the succeeding section, the avowed purpose of which is to restrain State legislation, contains in terms the very prohibition. It declares, that "no State shall pass any bill of attainder or ex post facto law." This provision, then, of the ninth section, however comprehensive its language, contains no restriction on State legislation. The ninth section having enumerated, in the nature of a bill of rights, the limitations intended to be imposed on the powers of the General Government, the tenth proceeds to enumerate those which were to operate on the State legislatures. These restrictions are brought together in the same section, and are by express words applied to the States. "No State shall enter into any treaty," &c. Perceiving, that in a constitution framed by the people of the United States, for the government of all, no limitation of the action of government on the people would apply to the State government, unless expressed in terms, the restrictions contained in the tenth section are in direct words so applied to the States. There is no doubt about what Barron said. Montañez v. State Ins. Fund, 91 F.Supp.3d 291 (D.P.R. 2015) The Fifth Amendment's Due Process right stems from the following provision: “[n]o person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ...” U.S. Const. amend. V. However, the Supreme Court interpreted the first ten amendments of the constitution (the Bill of Rights) to be enforceable only against the federal government. Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833) (“The 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.”). Subsequently, the Fourteenth Amendment—which contains its own Due Process clause—was enacted. The Fourteenth Amendment provides that “[n]o state shall ... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (emphasis provided). U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   1:16:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #12. To: nolu chan (#11) (Edited) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown.. -- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion. --- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? I was well aware of this statement in Nunn and was just waiting for you to demostrate your ignorance. Thanks for playing, loser. Bullshit. You've been outed for the phony that you are. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   1:49:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #13. To: nolu chan (#11) "Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-11   10:39:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #14. To: misterwhite, Y'ALL (#13) Mr. Chief Justice MARSHALL delivered the opinion of the court." Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. misterwhite John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   10:53:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #15. To: tpaine (#12) AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251 Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Obviously, you are proven a idiot once again. Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846) overrode SCOTUS Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, (1833) the way a Georgia court opinion saying abortion is not a constitutionally protected right would today overrule Roe v. Wade. Notably, you can not cite any post where I ever said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." This is because you just make up crap and defecate on the internet. Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016) B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation At the time of its adoption in 1871, the Bill of Rights — and, particularly, the individual liberties secured within it — did not apply against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833)(noting that the amendments found in the Bill of Rights "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"); Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-552 (1833)(same). Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain individual rights from interference by the States. And thereafter, the Supreme Court began using that Amendment's Due Process Clause to "incorporate" a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten Amendments against the States, "initiating what has been called a process of 'selective incorporation,' i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first [ten] Amendments." McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742, 763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases). The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall...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." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights that are "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968)(referring to those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions")(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated. With respect to the First Amendment, see Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)(Establishment Clause); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)(Free Exercise Clause); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 (1937)(freedom of assembly); Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)(free speech); Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)(freedom of the press). As to the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, see McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. at 742. With respect to the Fourth Amendment, see Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (1964) (warrant requirement); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961)(exclusionary rule); Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949)(freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures). With respect to the Fifth Amendment, see Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (1969) (Double Jeopardy Clause); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (privilege against self-incrimination); Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 22 (1897) (Just Compensation Clause). With respect to the Sixth Amendment, see Duncan, 391 U.S. 145 (trial by jury in criminal cases); Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967)(compulsory process); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967)(speedy trial); Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965) (Confrontation Clause); Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (assistance of counsel); In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948)(right to a public trial). With respect to the Eighth Amendment, see Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962)(Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause); Schilb v. Kuebel, 404 U.S. 357 (1971)(Excessive Bail Clause). nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:51:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #16. To: tpaine, misterwhite (#14) John Marshall was a founding father who insisted that States could ignore our individual rights as outlined in the Constitution. And lest we forget, misterwhite insists that States can ignore our right to bear arms. More blithering legal idiocy. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803). Actually, Chief Justice Marshall wrote majority opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Marbury was a unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is, and Chief Justice Marshall was the proper authority to write for the majority of the Court. What he wrote was the Opinion of the Court. While the judicial department is empowered to say what the law is, tpaine is not. Notably absent is a tpaine provision of any opinion of any justice in the U.S. Supreme Court that has ever agreed with his nonsense that the original Bill of Rights applied to the States, other than through incorporation via the 14th Amendment. tpaine pronouncements contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings are legally meaningless bleatings of a fool. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:55:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #17. To: tpaine (#12) You've been outed for the phony that you are. Go tilt some more windmills at Justice Scalia. Talk about a phony. Idiot tpaine thinking he is responding to nolu chan: [SCALIA] The Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, reads: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” It is apparent that this Clause creates a rule of decision: [tpaine #90] A "rule of decision"? --- Who in hell made up that OPINION? And why should I care? [nc] Antonin Scalia "made up that Opinion," and you should care because he did it as an Associate Justice writing a majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme court. [SCALIA] Courts “shall” regard the “Constitution,” and all laws “made in Pursuance thereof,” as “the supreme Law of the Land.” They must not give effect to state laws that conflict with federal laws. [tpaine #90] You are paraphrasing the words as written to make another OPINION, --- You really can't help yourself, can you.... [nc] Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court. [SCALIA] ---- It instructs courts what to do when state and federal law clash, but is silent regarding who may enforce federal laws in court, and in what circumstances they may do so. [tpaine #90] You're simply making up more opinions on what the supremacy clause means. -- Its apparent you can't stop this inane form of argument. [nc] Justice Scalia was writing a majority Opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court pertaining to what the supremacy clause means. It speaks loudly of your intellect that you find his form of argument to be inane. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   19:59:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #18. To: tpaine (#8) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-11   20:01:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #19. To: misterwhite (#13) Lest we forget, John Marshall was one of the Founding Fathers. He would know what he's talking about. In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government. One hopes that at least a couple of them knew what they were talking about. The Congressional Register, First Congress, 2nd Ed., Vol. 2 (1790), In context, in all cases when reference was made to "the government," the Federal congressmen referred to the Federal government, and not to the several State governments, as is clear when one considers Mr. Hartley's statement "that all the rights and powers that were not given to the government, were retained by the states and the people thereof...." In its final version, this appeared as Amendment Nine, "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." August 15, 1789 Page 194: The house then resolved itself into a committee of the whole on the amendments to the constitution. Page 197: The next clause of the 4th proposition was taken into consideration, and was as follows: "The freedom of speech and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances shall not be infringed." Page 197: Mr. BENSON. The committee who framed this report, proceded on the principle that these rights belonged to the people; they conceived them to be inherent, and all that they meant to provide against, was their being infringed by the government. Page 198: Mr. HARTLEY Observed that it had been asserted in the convention of Pennsylvania, by the friends of the constitution, that all the rights and powers that were not given to the government, were retained by the states and the people thereof; this was also his own opinion, but as four or five states had required to be secured in those rights by an express declaration in the constitution, he was disposed to gratify them; he thought every thing that was not incompatible with the general good ought to be granted, if it would tend to obtain the confidence of the people in the government, and upon the whole, he thought these woreds were as necessary to be inserted in the declaration of rights as most in the clause. Page 203: Mr. GERRY By the checks provided in the constitution, we have good grounds to believe that the very framers of it conceived that the government would be liable to mal-administration, and I presume that the gentlemen of this house do not mean to arrogate to themselves more perfection than human nature has as yet been found to be capable of; if they do not, they will admit an additional check against abuses which this, like every other government, is subject to. = = = = = = = = = = John Marshall in the Convention debating the BOR Amendments. http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_13.htm MONDAY, June 16, 1788.[1] The Convention, according to the order of the day, again resolved itself into a committee of the whole Convention, to take into further consideration the proposed plan of government. Mr. WYTHE in the chair. [The 8th section still under consideration. See page 378.] [1. Elliot misprinted this as Monday, June 14, 1788.] [excerpt] Mr. JOHN MARSHALL All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article. This power is not included in the restrictions in that section. = = = = = = = = = = James Madison letter to Thomas Jefferson of October 17, 1788, excerpt. It is true nevertheless that not a few, particularly in Virginia have contended for the proposed alterations from the most honorable & patriotic motives; and that among the advocates for the Constitution there are some who wish for further guards to public liberty & individual rights. As far as these may consist of a constitutional declaration of the most essential rights, it is probable they will be added; though there are many who think such addition unnecessary, and not a few who think it misplaced in such a Constitution. There is scarce any point on which the party in opposition is so much divided as to its importance and its propriety. My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. I have favored it because I supposed it might be of use, and if properly executed could not be of disservice. I have not viewed it in an important light—1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-11   22:17:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #20. To: nolu chan (#17) The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Hey shithead, There you go again with the juvenile name calling. -- Whatta clown.. -- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule They aren't 'overruling' anything. Just issuing their opinion. --- Ithe precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Answer the question, IF you can.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-11   23:35:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #21. To: GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, y'all (#18) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to fringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   0:05:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #22. To: tpaine, GrandIsland, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan (#21) Didn't you defend kookifornia several months ago and claim it was coming around? Isn't that why you pay the most for your servitude? It's looking real swell. I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. And your say-so not supported by any proof will not work for me since I have found your assumptive statements to support your preformed conclusions to be consistently untrustworthy as a source of factual information. However, that being the case, I will attempt to answer your question when you asked how “that” is working out for me. As I attempt to answer your question, I would need first to try understand why these noble, highly intelligent and dedicatedly patriotic gentlemen whom I hold in such high esteem would ever want, assuming they did, “an ornamental border consisting of short straight or twisted threads or strips hanging from cut or raveled edges or from a separate band” (Merriam-Webster definition of fringe) “on our gun rights” before I determine if state power could control anything to do with said “fringe.” Since I have not been privy to prior interchange discussions, I can however emphatically state without any question whatsoever that I hate the combination of bright yellow and dark purple on the “fringe” you have referenced. This opinion of being the ugliest color combination ever is shared by a member of DeviantArt which is the world's largest online social community for artists and art enthusiasts, allowing people to connect through the creation and sharing of art. My delirium in this situation that bothers you so much and one you have so boldly taken liberty to thrust me into is best compared to the somber side-effect of a nation placed under sedation which was induced by a heroin-like injected haze of obfuscation and I always have a trepid tentativeness conflicting with a strong desire to stay free of any association with all stupid irrationality you Paultards present. That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce. I trust this answer has satisfied your curiosity and I will forever remain at a total loss to understand why you pinged me to pose such an “out of the blue” question. Gatlin  posted on  2016-06-12   3:40:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #23. To: Gatlin (#22) "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce." Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want -- short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-12   8:15:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #24. To: nolu chan (#19) "In Congressional debate in 1789, even the congressmen said the then-proposed amendments applied only to the Federal government." Hell, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights spells it out: "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: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution." The states were concerned about delegating power to the newly-formed federal government and added the first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) to "prevent misconstruction or abuse" of those powers. Each state was fiercely independent. They wouldn't write one Bill of Rights to limit their own powers. misterwhite  posted on  2016-06-12   8:29:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #25. To: Gatlin, confesses to Statism, y'all (#22) I've never defended the liberals in California that claim the power to infringe on our gun rights. The only people I know who support that state power are your buddies here, -- misterwhite, roscoe, and nolu chan. How's that working out for you and gatlin? First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to infringe on our gun rights. I only know that you just said they support it. Read much? -- On this thread alone they've ALL outed themselves as statist gun grabbers, -- and they've been doing that for years, on this forum and others. That said and speaking for myself, never for GrandIsland, the Commerce Clause making the regulation of gun sales a state power is working out fine with me. Our Constitution lays out a specific power structure of the federal government and its relationship to the powers of states. While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce… And there we have it, your own confession that you support the supposed power of States to regulate/infringe upon our gun rights. --- Thank you. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:05:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #26. To: tpaine (#25) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine... anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants. Willie Green  posted on  2016-06-12   9:22:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #27. To: misterwhite, gatlin, both support Statists, again... (#23) Gatlin (#22) --- And "While the Constitution does protect the rights of all private citizens to bear arms, the regulation of gun sales should be left to the states with the federal government maintaining its role of regulating interstate commerce." misterwhite --- Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, individual gun rights were protected by state constitutions. Which is why gun laws were different in each state. No, gun rights have always been protected by the Constitution, altho various yahoos in different states and localities have been allowed by leftist courts to infringe upon that right. California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:28:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #28. To: Willie Green (#26) Come try and take mine, libtard. I'll give you 50,000 (don't tell Buckyboy, he's too stupid to understand) reasons (230 grains at a time) why you interpret the 2nd amendment wrong. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:30:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #29. To: tpaine (#27) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... The top 5 states with the highest cost of chains. Kookifornia I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:32:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #30. To: Willie Green joins the canary klan (#26) The 2nd Amendment only applies to single-shot, flintlock, smooth-bore muzzleloaders, tpaine... anything invented afterward can be regulated anyway the government wants. Willie Green Thanks for adding yourself to this roll call of numbnut gun grabbers, Willy. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:33:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #31. To: GrandIsland (#29) California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. Keep telling yourself that, while you fund the cost of the chains you wear... If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:40:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #32. To: tpaine (#31) lol... I have two incomes. A pension and a full time paycheck... earning ANOTHER pension. My mother lives in a one bedroom townhouse like apartment that costs more a month than your home, taxes and car payment... and it doesn't have a basement or attic. Douchebag. I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   9:45:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #33. To: GrandIsland (#32) If you're to be believed, (doubtful) you work with the Statists. Congrats. Although I'd bet you're on welfare, posting from your mother's basement. I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer fvor, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. Your fascist dreams are noted, --- Thanks. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   9:55:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #34. To: tpaine (#33) It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, asshole. Only a liberal Paultard would equate that with government servitude. Suck it up, bleeding heart. Criminals WILL BE PUNISHED. Cry somewhere else. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-12   10:04:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #35. To: GrandIsland (#34) I work to keep the drug addled scumbags you cheer for, off the streets and hopefully locked in 23 hours a day in the hole. GrandIsland Fascistic dreams... It's not fascism to remove the rights and punish convicted felons. It's called punishment, after a guilty verdict by a jury of their peers, And you hope they're put in a hole for 23 hrs a day? -- Fascist dreaming. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   10:16:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #36. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#35) Bump to a thread that outs you ALL. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   12:51:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #37. To: misterwhite (#23) Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. That make sense and it comes as no surprise. He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects. Gatlin  posted on  2016-06-12   12:56:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #38. To: Gatlin (#37) misterwhite--- California's state constitution says nothing about the right to keep and bear arms, meaning they can do whatever they want - - short of writing laws which would prevent the formation of an armed state militia. --- Since numbnuts lives in California, he does not want to face that fact and acuses everyone of trying to take his guns. Easier than amending the California constitution, I guess. California only needs to comply with the 2nd. -- This will occur in time, thru the ballot box, hopefully. But 'they', supported by you numbnut gun grabbers, will not prevail. --- And they cannot "do whatever they want". gatlin --- He does have a weird aspect on causes and effects. Cause --- Apparently, no one in Orlando was able to defend themselves. Effect -- A lone gunman was able to slaughter 50 of them. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   13:27:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #39. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#36) All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green Bump to a thread that outs you ALL. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   15:11:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #40. To: tpaine (#20) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd? Answer the question, IF you can.. Yes. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Do you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful? Answer the question, IF you can. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   17:29:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #41. To: nolu chan (#40) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?. Bear in mind that according to you, earlier, you said they couldn't. Answer the question, IF you can.. Yes. --- Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't. Is it any wonder you're rapidly becoming known as a phony legal beagle? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   17:53:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #42. To: Gatlin (#22) First of all, I don’t know that misterwhie, roscoe and nolu chan “support that state power” has the power to fringe (Sic) on our gun rights. To clear that up, no, I have never said such a thing, and tpaine just likes to make things up. tpaine crazily imagines the Second Amendment extends to any and all weapons, and I believe the right was carried over from the English common law and the English Declaration of Rights signed into law February 13, 1689 by William and Mary on the day of their ascension to the throne. A standing army at peacetime without the consent of Parliament is illegal. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law. All protestants have the right to bear arms for defense. These the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law. So, no, you do not have a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons, or other weapons not allowed by law. The question is not which part of the right can be infringed (none), but what is encompassed by the right. The right is one that the colonists enjoyed before July 4, 1776, and which they retained after the revolution, and which is constitutionally protected. First, the people protected their right in their State constitutions: North Carolina Constitution of 1776 XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strick subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Vermont Constitution of 1777 XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Virginia Bill of Rights of 1776 Sec. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Chief Justice Taft said that the Constitution "cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law...." Ex Parte Grossman, 267 US 87, 118-19 (1925), Chief Justice Taft, Opinion of the Court The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of. the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood. Jefferson wrote about constitutional interpretation that attempts to find meanings that may be squeezed out of the text. Letter of Thomas Jefferson to William Joohnson, June 12, 1833 2. on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   18:21:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #43. To: tpaine (#41) (Edited) So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't. No, you are still just being an asshole. And you could not answer the question of why Obergefell swept away every State law and State court opinion that conflicted with it, just as Barron did. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   18:24:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #44. To: nolu chan (#43) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?. Bear in mind that according to you, earlier, you said they couldn't. Yes. So now you say they can, and then you said they couldn't. Is it any wonder you're rapidly becoming known as a phony legal beagle? No, you are still just being an asshole. No, I'm just commenting on your inability to explain yourself. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   18:34:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #45. To: tpaine (#12) So you NOW contend that the SCOTUS of 1833 could void a State opinion about the 2nd?. No, in all cases since there has been a Federal court system, any State court holding about anything, including about the 2nd Amendent, in conflict with any Federal court opinion, is overturned and rendered null and void by the Federal court opinion. I said that the State court opinion of 1846 that you cited (Nunn) could not overrule the precedent set the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (Barron) in 1833. To the extent that the State court opinion (Nunn) was in conflict with the SCOTUS opinion (Barron), it (Nunn) was null and void. nolu chan at #11: And, the Georgia state court in 1846 cannot overrule the precedent set, and still in effect, by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1833. To the extent that Nunn is in conflict with Barron, it is null and void. I said that Obergefell "overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell. nolu chan #40: Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell overturned every State law and State court opinion contrary to Obergefell, and made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. Continuing at nolu chan #40: Do you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful? Answer the question, IF you can. It is rather obvious that yours is a pitiful effort to obfuscate the fact that you are unable to answer the return question. Damn, you are pitiful. You are so much like yukon, you are yukon. And you are a dishonorable asshole. Why don't you know if "you think a State court could issue a valid opinion and overturn Obergefell and find gay marriage in that State to be unlawful?" tpaine at #9: Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. You are the shithead who claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). Way to go, shithead. nolu chan at #10: Hey shithead, link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." You have not and cannot link to any such post and have failed to do so. Your horseshit at #12 did not do so, in your usual bullshit way when you are a cornered cockroach and have no answer. tpaine content free bullshit at #12: The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself. You couldn't do it, could you, shithead. As previously stated, I will never fail to show you the respect I feel you deserve. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-12   23:16:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #46. To: nolu chan (#45) tpaine at #9: Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. You --- ---- claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). --- No, I claimed at #9, that Nunn destroyed YOUR position. nolu chan at #10: Hey ---- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself.. And, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-12   23:51:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #47. To: All you gungabbers, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green 36 All yrs, misterwhite, roscoe, nolu Chan, gatlin, grandisland, Willy Green (#39) Bump to a thread that outs you ALL. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   12:43:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #48. To: nolu chan (#45) He loves Nunn because it asserts that concealed weapons bans are permissible under the Second Amendment. He's a closet gun grabber. Roscoe  posted on  2016-06-13   13:56:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #49. To: Roscoe, a hopeless liar (#48) Ho hum, more lies from the coward roscoe. Nothing new folks, he can't help himself. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   14:02:38 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #50. To: tpaine, yukon, but i repeat myself (#46) Nunn vs. The State of Georgia The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Of course, I never said their was "NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." There are assholes and idiots, such as yourself, that hold the opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Barron is Judicial precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1833, still being cited as such in 2016. All court opinions from any lower Federal court or any State court must yield. This explains, embarrassingly, why Obergefell struck down all conflicting State laws and court opinions, and why all states are legally required to recognize gay marriage. - - - - - You --- ---- claimed that a State court opinion (Nunn 1846) overruled the holding of a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court holding (Barron 1833). --- No, I claimed at #9, that Nunn destroyed YOUR position. As Nunn, by a State court, did nothing because it was contrary to the holding of SCOTUS in Barron, it did nothing to destroy my position. You comment only identifed you as an incompetent fool. The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty. The 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. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests. The powers they conferred on this government were to be exercised by itself, and the limitations on power, if expressed in general terms, are naturally, and we think necessarily, applicable to the government created by the instrument. They are limitations of power granted in the instrument itself, not of distinct governments framed by different persons and for different purposes. Barron is Judicial precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1833, still being cited as such in 2016. All court opinions from any lower Federal court or any State court must yield. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): 1. This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court’s considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483. P. 4. [...] Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” - - - - - nolu chan at #10: Hey ---- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself.. As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't. - - - - - And, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing. I am not obsessing. I am documenting, for the world to see, that are a blithering idiot who has no clue what he is talking about. Please continue your assistance to my noble mission. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   16:39:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #51. To: Roscoe (#48) He loves Nunn because it asserts that concealed weapons bans are permissible under the Second Amendment. He's a closet gun grabber. If that were why the incompetent nutcase loves a State court opinion, he would be far better served citing Federal U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 (1897) (7-1) The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the "Bill of Rights," were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons; the provision that no person shall be twice put in jeopardy (Art. V) does not prevent a second trial if upon the first trial the jury failed to agree or if the verdict was set aside upon the defendant's motion, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662, 163 U. S. 627, nor does the provision of the same article that no one shall be a witness against himself impair his obligation to testify if a prosecution against him be barred by the lapse of time, a pardon, or by statutory enactment, Brown v. Walker, 161 U. S. 591, and cases cited. Nor does the provision that an accused person shall be confronted with the witnesses against him prevent the admission of dying declarations, or the depositions of witnesses who have died since the former trial. - - - - - Heller 554 US 570, 626 (2008) Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[Footnote 26] [Footnote 26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. McDonald, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) Slip op. at 11: In the late 19th century, the Court began to considerwhether the Due Process Clause prohibits the States frominfringing rights set out in the Bill of Rights. See Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884) (due process does not require grand jury indictment); Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226 (1897) (due process prohibits States from taking of private property for public use without just compensation). Five features of the approach taken during the ensuing era should be noted. First, the Court viewed the due process question as entirely separate from the question whether a right was aprivilege or immunity of national citizenship. See Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 99 (1908). Second, the Court explained that the only rights protected against state infringement by the Due Process Clause were those rights “of such a nature that they are included in the conception of due process of law.” Ibid. See also, e.g., Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46 (1947); Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455 (1942); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233 (1936); Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932). While it was “possible that some of the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against National action [might] also be safeguarded against state action,” the Court stated, this was “not because those rights are enumerated in the first eight Amendments.” Twining, supra, at 99. Slip op. at 39: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   16:41:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #52. To: nolu chan (#50) lu chan at #10: Hey ---- link to any post where I said that "prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." The thread is: The Ninth Circuit: Right to Bear Arms Includes Right to Acquire Arms --- With #110 posts, look it up yourself.. s I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't. As I said, do it yourself, as I am NOT at your service. - - - - - And, please continue to obsess over this. ---- It's very amusing. I am not obsessing. I am documenting, for the world to see, that are a blithering idiot who has no clue what he is talking about --- Please continue your assistance to my noble mission. The world? God but you are funny. The only thing anyone is seeing in our discussion is YOUR obsessive behavior about your NOBLE MISSON? Thanks for the laughs.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   17:09:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #53. To: nolu chan, and the Klan, --- Have they no shame? (#51) We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   17:16:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #54. To: tpaine (#52) As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't. As I said, do it yourself, as I am NOT at your service. As I said, you cannot and did not link to any post. You didn't because you can't. As no such post exists, I will not look for one. It's just your bullshit that you cannot defend about a non-existent post. As if you would not link to such a post if you could. You are such a sorry sack of shit. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   17:51:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #55. To: tpaine, yukon, but i repeat myself (#53) There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions and a bullshit non-response. [tpaine #9] The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States. Numbnuts asserted that a State court opinion destroyed the still standing 1833 precedent set by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore, with thousands of supporting Federal opinions since. Numbnuts hallucinates that a State court can overrule the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, I never claimed there was "NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." tpaine and some misguided souls have such opinions. tpaine and his clueless opinions do not overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. The Federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution and its interpretation is the supreme law of the land. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-13   17:53:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #56. To: nolu chan has no shame ---- (#55) We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” There you see it agAin, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions --- How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. --- and a bullshit non-response. Your dreaming again. My response cleared up YOUR bullshit. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   18:33:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #57. To: nolu chan (#0) I would strongly suggest that you guys (and gals) get the book entitled That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook because nothing of what I see on this thread makes damn sense at all. Nothing. That the right to keep and bear Militia Arms is found in United States v. Miller (1939) And that according to Title 10 Sec 311 (b) (2) We are the militia https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 goldilucky  posted on  2016-06-13   19:46:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #58. To: goldilucky, Y'ALL (#57) nothing of what I see on this thread makes damn sense at all. Nothing. I've read Halbrooks book and agree with his positions almost completely. My opponents here do not. In particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights. Does that make sense to you? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   20:16:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #59. To: tpaine (#58) (Edited) in particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights All States of the union have their own Constitutions. However, their Constitutions have to be concomitant with the original Bills of Rights to the United States Constitution. They cannot choose to ignore certain parts of those inalienable Rights as secured by the U.S. Constitution. goldilucky  posted on  2016-06-13   20:43:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #60. To: goldilucky, we agree, the canary Klan does not. (#59) I've read Halbrooks book and agree with his positions almost completely. My opponents here do not. In particular, they insist that States have the power to ignore and even infringe on our rights. Does that make sense to you? All States of the union have their own Constitutions. However, their Constitutions have to be concomitant with the original Bills of Rights to the United States Constitution. They cannot choose to ignore certain parts of those inalienable Rights as secured by the U.S. Constitution. Well put, we agree.. Now try getting that truth across to the canary Klan. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-13   20:50:18 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #61. To: tpaine (#60) (Edited) All people need to do is 1) identify what is the meaning of "militia". Who are they? What classification do you fall under? 2) Get ahold of Halbrooks book, That Every Man Be Armed and start reading. 3) Get ahold of The Federalist Papers because there are numerous references to what our Founding Fathers stood on regarding the right to keep and bear arms. Most of them were strong supporters of the Second Amendment because of the concern of professional standing armies in times of declarations of war and/or when a President turns into a modern day Benedict Arnold and turns his army against the common people. goldilucky  posted on  2016-06-13   20:57:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #62. To: goldilucky (#57) I would strongly suggest that you guys (and gals) get the book entitled That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right by Stephen P. Halbrook because nothing of what I see on this thread makes damn sense at all. Nothing. That the right to keep and bear Militia Arms is found in United States v. Miller (1939) And that according to Title 10 Sec 311 (b) (2) We are the militia https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311 Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. For most of our history, the Bill of Rights was not thought applicable to the States, and the Federal Government did not significantly regulate the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, originally applied only to the Federal Government. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-14   15:17:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #63. To: tpaine (#56) (Edited) tpaine #9: "AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846 251. Nunn vs. The State of Georgia. The above, quoted from Nunn, destroys your position that prior to the 14th, There was NO opinion that the 2nd Amendment applied to the States." Repeated at #12, #20 misterwhite and I were having a pleasant conversation about the early gun laws largely concerning concealed weapons. I provided the opinion in Nunn v. State 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846). Nunn involved concealed weapons laws and spoke of the earlier Kentucky case, Bliss v. Commonwealth (Ky. 1822) and the Alabama case State v. Reid, (Ala. 1840), also involving state concealed weapons laws. Nunn is harmless. It does not destroy anybody's position on whether the Bill of Rights restrained the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. And then tpaine came along to defecate upon the thread, carryuing on an argument from another thread. As Nunn was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron v. Baltimore 32 U.S. 243 (1833), it could never survive legal challenge. tpaine continued to prattle on that the Supreme Court opinion made no difference and repeat that the state court opinion in Nunn destroyed by position that the Bill of Rights did not restrain the states prior to selective incorporation via the 14th Amendment. By an act of sheer good fortune, I not only have the opinion in Barron but I also have the Georgia Supreme Court opinion in State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874). State v. Hill, 53 Ga. 472 (1874) 2. The other question made in this record is a far graver one. It is insisted that the act describing the offense charged and fixing the penalty, is an infringement of the right of the citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the United States and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the United States of March 4th, 1789, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the United States. And this would seem to be the inevitable conclusion from the history of these amendments as well as from their nature and even their terms. I do not myself assent to that other limitation of the legislative powers of our general assembly insisted upon in the argument, and sometimes announced by courts, to-wit: the "higher law," which is appealed to as above even the constitution. At last, therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution. Nunn, which was clearly contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Barron regarding a supposed application of the Bill of Rights to the states, was overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court 142 years ago. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-14   15:45:05 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #64. To: nolu chan (#63) There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. Have they no shame? There you have it again, sports fans. tpaine proven full of shit by three SCOTUS opinions --- How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? Must you be so obsessed? Get help. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-14   16:00:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #65. To: tpaine (#64) There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791). Notably, Heller was written by Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy. The dissent was by Breyer, joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg. All of the conservative justices joined to make the Heller majority. All of the ultra liberals joined in dissent. tpaine joins the dissent. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575-76 (2007): Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007). Heller was about the right to keep and bear arms in one's home in the Federal District of Washington, D.C. Heller commented that "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..." Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2007): III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26] [26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states. Only afterward, did the courts selectively incorporate portions of the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment and make them applicable to the states. tpaine thinks he is the supreme authority in exposition of the law of the Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court explicitly disagrees. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958): Article VI of the Constitution makes the Constitution the “supreme Law of the Land.” In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for a unanimous Court, referring to the Constitution as “the fundamental and paramount law of the nation,” declared in the notable case of Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, that “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” This decision declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution, and that principle has ever since been respected by this Court and the Country as a permanent and indispensable feature of our constitutional system. It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) set a standing precedent which is now 213 years old. One can see North Carolina in 1844 recognizing the precedential authority of the U.S. Supreme Court in Barron v. Baltimore in 1833 that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States. State v. Newsom, 5 Iredell 181, 182, 27 N.C. 250, 251 (1844) Nash, J . We are of opinion there was error in the judgmeut pronounced by the presiding judge. On the argument here it has been urged that the act of 1840 (ch. 30) under which the defendant was prosecuted is unconstitutional, being in violation of Article II of the amended Constitution of the United States, and also of articles 3 and 17 of the Bill of Rights of this State. We do not agree to the correctness of either of these objections. The Constitution of the United States was ordained and established by the people of the United States for their own government and not for that of the different States. The limitations of power contained in it and expressed in general terms are necessarily confined to the General Government. It is now the settled construction of that instrument that no limitation upon the power of Government extends to or embraces the different States, unless they are mentioned, or it is expressed to be so intended. Barrow v. Baltimore, [sic - Barron] 7 Peters, 240; R. R. Davis, 19 N. C., 459. In Article II of the amended Constitution the States are neither mentioned nor referred to. It is, therefore, only restrictive of the powers of the Federal Government. And the beat goes on... Johnston v. Earle, 245 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1957) In Bell v. Hood, the refusal of the district court to consider this question, and its affirmance by the court of appeals3 was reversed, and the cause returned to the district court to determine whether the complaint stated a federal cause of action. 3 Bell v. Hood, 9 Cir., 1945, 150 F.2d 96. On its return to the district court, that court, in a very able opinion by Judge Mathes, held that no federal cause of action existed for the acts of federal officials violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.4 His reasoning is that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment applies only to the federal government,5 and not to individuals.6 4 Bell v. Hood, D.C.S.D.Cal. 1947, 71 F. Supp. 813. 5 That the Fifth Amendment applies only to the acts of the federal government is settled beyond doubt. See, e.g., Spies v. People of the State of Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 166, 8 S.Ct. 21, 31 L.Ed. 80; Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 476, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L. Ed. 1048. In Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 88 L.Ed. 1408, the Court said: "* * * [F]or more than one hundred years, ever since Barron v. [Mayor and City Council of City of] Baltimore [1833], 7 Pet. 243 [ 32 U.S. 243], 8 L.Ed. 672, one of the principles of our Constitution has been that these [the Fourth and Fifth] Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit. Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 606, 16 S.Ct. 644, 650, 40 L.Ed. 819; Jack v. [State of] Kansas, 199 U.S. 372, 380, 26 S.Ct. 73, 75, 50 L.Ed. 234; Twining v. [State of] New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97." 322 U.S. at page 490, 64 S.Ct. 1083. 6 Mr. Justice Black stated in Bell v. Hood that "whether federal courts can grant money recovery for damages said to have been suffered as a result of federal officers violating the Fourth and Fifth Amendments" is a question which "has never been specifically decided by this Court." 327 U.S. at page 684, 66 S.Ct. 777. In Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652, however, the Supreme Court clearly indicated that there was no civil action for damages based upon the Fourth Amendment against officers who had violated it seizing plaintiff's property. Speaking of the possible nonfederal liability of the offending officers, the Court said: "What remedies the defendant may have against them we need not inquire, as the 4th Amendment is not directed to individual misconduct of such officials. Its limitations reach the Federal government and its agencies." 232 U.S. at page 398, 34 S.Ct. 346. In fine, the federal government has created no cause of action enforceable in its courts for such torts under the state law, and hence the district court here lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-15   16:31:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #66. To: nolu chan (#65) How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed? Get help. There you see it again sports fans. tpaine trying to change the topic of discussion, this time to gun free zones (from his false claim that the BoR applied to the States since 1791). The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones. There you see it again sports fans, --- nolu is unable to even understand the concept under discussion. Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15   18:06:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #67. To: tpaine (#66) Poor fella really needs the help of mental health professionals. Id say any asshole that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights... needs mental health, kookifonian. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-15   18:43:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #68. To: GrandIsland (#67) Id say any ---- that pays some of the highest property taxes to a state that shits on constitutional rights the most of the other 49.... and then posts on LF as a champion of constitutional rights... I'm renting a cabin in the mountains from a corporation (my son is one of the owners) that pays very little properly tax on our fixer upper resort acreage. -- Eat your heart out. And yes, I support our constitutional rights against you canary Klan weirdos. So get a life.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15   19:09:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #69. To: tpaine (#68) Your rent funds your tyranny. I'm sure your Christopher Dorner oven still has higher taxes than a mansion in Arizona. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-15   20:22:06 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #70. To: GrandIsland (#69) Bizarro bullshit all ya got? Have another cocktail. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-15   20:33:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #71. To: tpaine (#66) How many times must you be told? --- SCOTUS opinions do not change the words of the 2nd. - It must not be infringed. Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed? Actually, my #65 makes no mention of or allusion to Nunn. Nunn was the case you repeatedly have claimed destroyed my position, oblivious to the fact that it was contrary to an existing U.S. Supreme Court opinion when made in a Georgia court, and was subsequently overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court about 140 years ago. Nonsense like your claim only destroys your credibility. The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones. Some of the BoR applies, and some does not, depending on whether it has been incorporated into the 14th Amendment. None of the BoR applied to the states before incorporation following the 14th Amendment. Productions v. Fogerty, 3:14-cv-00633-RCJ-VPC (D. Nev. Aug 26, 2015) [John Fogerty, Creedence Clearwater Revival] Until the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868, no federal due process clause applied to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.). My #65 responded to your bullshit claim at #64 that: There you see it again, sports fans, the canary Klan trying to justify their support for gun free zones, -- by quoting Heller. As I made clear at #65, Heller was about keeping arms in the home, in the Federal district of Washington, D.C., once again demonstrating the nature of your bullshit. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575-76 (2007): Respondent Dick Heller is a D. C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Thurgood Marshall Judiciary Building. He applied for a registration certificate for a handgun that he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He thereafter filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on the registration of handguns, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits the carrying of a firearm in the home without a license, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of “functional firearms within the home.” App. 59a. The District Court dismissed respondent’s complaint, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 311 F. Supp. 2d 103, 109 (2004). The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, construing his complaint as seeking the right to render a firearm operable and carry it about his home in that condition only when necessary for self-defense, reversed, see Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 401 (2007). It held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right. See id., at 395, 399–401. The Court of Appeals directed the District Court to enter summary judgment for respondent. We granted certiorari. 552 U. S. 1035 (2007). Heller was about the right to keep and bear arms in one's home in the Federal District of Washington, D.C. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2007): III Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152-153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489-490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students' Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[26] [26] We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive. Heller commented that "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..." If the tpaine interpretation were correct, all visitors to the White House would have the right to enter with a Sig MCX. He denies any right of the government to restrict the supposed right to keep and bear any arms in any place and any time. Such has never been the law of this land, or any other that I know of. Once it is admitted that the government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in one place, it follows that the government can use its authority for other places as it determines, e.g., courts. And my pet plant has been watered for another day. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-16   15:37:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #72. To: nolu chan (#71) Once it is admitted that the government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in one place, it follows that the government can use its authority for other places as it determines, e.g., courts. I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe). -- Your authoritarian view gives them VIRTUALLY unlimited power. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-16   22:47:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #73. To: tpaine (#72) [nolu chan #71] Once it is admitted that the government has the authority to restrict the right to keep and bear arms in one place, it follows that the government can use its authority for other places as it determines, e.g., courts. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe). You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not. There have been state laws restricting the bearing of arms since 1813. Louisiana 1813 AN ACT Against carrying concealed weapons, and going armed in public places in an unnecessary manner. Preamble. Whereas assassination and attempts to commit the same, have of late been of such frequent occurrence as to become a subject of serious alarm to the peaceable and well disposed inhabitants of this state; and whereas the same is in a great measure to be attributed to the dangerous and wicked practice of carrying about in public places concealed and deadly weapons, or going to the same armed in an unnecessary manner, therefore; .... nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-17   19:00:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #74. To: nolu chan (#73) tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth. And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not. SCOTUS justices are pledged to honor the Constitution, not the federal government. -- And your misconception on this point tells a lot about why you're having mental problems with these issues. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-17   20:27:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #75. To: tpaine (#74) Toooooo bad for your extra crispy kookifornia. Wildfires for da libtards I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-18   8:04:30 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #76. To: GrandIsland (#75) Toooooo bad for your extra crispy kookifornia. Wildfires for da libtards Toooooo bad for your obsessions about California. -- Here in the northern mountains, no fires and its raining.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   8:49:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #77. To: tpaine (#76) (Edited) Until the fault-line gives away.... and the fruits and nuts are swept into the sea. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-18   9:05:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #78. To: GrandIsland (#77) Toooooo bad for your obsessions about California. -- Here in the northern mountains, no fires and its raining.. Until the fault-line gives away.... and the fruits and nuts are swept into the sea. Your fruity dreams are showing up again, grandiose. Get help for those mental aberrations. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   9:16:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #79. To: GrandIsland, -- As per the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, citizens of the United States shall have the right to carry arms capable of concealment in any public place in the United States of America, and nothing in State or local law shall infringe upon (#77) The question remains, grandisland: ---' Could President Trump issue such a finding? Should he? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   9:26:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #80. To: tpaine (#79) I believe that state laws should out TRUMP federal laws and no law should infringe upon the spirit of any constitutional Amendment. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-18   11:20:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #81. To: GrandIsland (#80) 'As per the provisions of the 2nd Amendment, citizens of the United States shall have the right to carry arms capable of concealment in any public place in the United States of America, and nothing in State or local law shall infringe upon this directive.' The question remains grandisland: ---' Could President Trump issue such a finding? Should he? I believe that state laws should out TRUMP federal laws and no law should infringe upon the spirit of any constitutional Amendment. Confusing answer, - you agree that there is a right to carry concealed anywhere, -- BUT, -- that there can only be State laws to that effect? How do you propose to insure that ALL States comply ? tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   12:08:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #82. To: tpaine (#81) I believe that state laws should out TRUMP federal laws and no law should infringe upon the spirit of any constitutional Amendment My answer is very simple. Read it slower if you don't understand. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح GrandIsland  posted on  2016-06-18   12:46:11 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #83. To: GrandIsland (#82) My answer is very simple --- Minded... tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   16:01:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #84. To: tpaine (#74) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. [tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth. You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws REGULATING the keeping and bearing of arms. Perhaps you are the only cretin in the country who does not think gun regulations restrict the right to keep and bear arms. But if regulate makes you feel better, so be it. Who decides before a revolution or constitutional amendment whether a REGULATION is "reasonable" or if it "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms? For example, who decides whether a law or regulation prohibiting the carrying of handguns in a school zone is lawful and not infringing? Who ya gonna call, Ghostbusters? [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. Cooper v Aaron, 358 US 1 (1958) It follows that the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment enunciated by this Court in the Brown case is the supreme law of the land, and Art. VI of the Constitution makes it of binding effect on the States “any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution.” Every state legislator and executive and judicial officer is solemnly committed by oath taken pursuant to Art. VI, cl. 3, “to support this Constitution,” as it has been enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court. So sayeth the Court. And who, to us, do you believe meaningfully decides the lawfulness of a law or regulation within our lifetime, without waiting for a revolution, a constitutional amendment, or the Supreme Court overturning its existing precedent? [tpaine #66] The BOR'S applies to the States, --- thus States do NOT have the power to declare gun free zones. There are declared gun free zones, upheld by the the U.S. Supreme Court. So, you believe the people (you) can simply ignore existing law and open carry your handgun in a school zone which has been declared a gun free zone. Good luck with that. I can't wait to hear your legal argument leading to your conviction. [nolu chan #73] Perhaps a slight flaw in the system is that the Federal government decides whether something done by the Federal government is lawful or not. [tpaine #74] SCOTUS justices are pledged to honor the Constitution, not the federal government. Then which justices in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court do you hold in respect and believe the court opinions they wrote or joined should be given respect? Can you name a few, or just one? Members of Congress and the President also pledge to honor the Constitution. All these pledges produced and upheld Obamacare. So, what is your point in saying they took a pledge? Do you believe your right to keep and bear arms is protected by their taking a pledge? If so, your right is protected by Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kennedy and Roberts. I'm surprised you have such faith in them and their pledge. There are now centuries of federal court opinions and it seems you have been unable to produce a single one that supports the crap you spew. You were reduced to this desperate grope: [tpaine #66] Your latest reply, addressed to the above, rehashes the Nunn opinion.. Why? ---- Must you be so obsessed? Only to be met with: Actually, my #65 makes no mention of or allusion to Nunn. Nunn was the case you repeatedly have claimed destroyed my position, oblivious to the fact that it was contrary to an existing U.S. Supreme Court opinion when made in a Georgia court, and was subsequently overturned by the Georgia Supreme Court about 140 years ago. Nonsense like your claim only destroys your credibility. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-18   19:00:00 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #85. To: nolu chan (#84) (Edited) Nolu, you are without a doubt, one of the craziest creeps I've ever had the good fortune to be entertained by, on the internet. Please, do continue your madness.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-18   19:37:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #86. To: tpaine (#85) [tpaine #85] Please, do continue your madness.. At your request, if that is what it takes to demonstrate you you are unable to make your case, or any case at all, other than your own dementia. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. [tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth. You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws REGULATING the keeping and bearing of arms. Perhaps you are the only cretin in the country who does not think gun regulations restrict the right to keep and bear arms. But if regulate makes you feel better, so be it. Who decides before a revolution or constitutional amendment whether a REGULATION is "reasonable" or if it "infringes" upon the right to keep and bear arms? For example, who decides whether a law or regulation prohibiting the carrying of handguns in a school zone is lawful and not infringing? Who ya gonna call, Ghostbusters? [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. So, you have no individual right until the collective people join your insanity and amend the Constitution to satisfy your dementia? Over time, of course. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-19   17:56:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #87. To: nolu chan (#86) I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). nolu chan #73] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms. [tpaine #74] Nope, they only have the power to reasonably regulate, NOT "restrict", as you so unreasonably shade the truth. [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, - -- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. So, you have no individual right until the collective people join you and amend the Constitution to satisfy you? Over time, of course. Collective? Your communitarian slip is showing. --- Nope, our right to arms exists, and when it is ignored, INDIVIDUAL Americans will rise up to see that rights are honored. Despite your efforts. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-19   19:35:46 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #88. To: tpaine (#87) our right to arms exists, and when it is ignored, INDIVIDUAL Americans will rise up to see that rights are honored. So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. Hmmmm, why are you still free? Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it? nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-20   15:33:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #89. To: nolu chan (#88) So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. Hmmmm, why are you still free? Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it? You're the poor dumb bastard around here. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-20   15:47:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #90. To: tpaine (#89) So, YOU will carry YOUR weapon in a school zone or other place designated as a gun-free zone. I admire your bravery. Good luck with your defense after your arrest. Hmmmm, why are you still free? Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it? You're the poor dumb bastard around here. Well, I am definitely not dumb enough to take your legal advice, and it appears no third party is either, and that leaves just you, and it appears that not even you are actually so dumb, stupid, and ignorant as to act on the demented shit you post. [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery. You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia. Kentucky 1813 Chap. LXXXIX AN ACT to prevent persons in this Commonwealth from wearing cocealed Arms, except in certain cases. Approved, February 3, 1813 Sec 1. BE it enacted by the general assembly of the commonwealth of Kentucky, That any person in this commonwealth, who shall ereafter wear a pocket pistol, dirk, large knife, or sword in a cane, concealed as a weapon, unless when travelling on a journay, shall be fined in any sum, not less than one hundred dollars.... nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-21   17:04:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #91. To: nolu chan (#90) Did you mean some OTHER poor dumb bastard was supposed to do it? You're the poor dumb bastard around here. Well, I am definitely not dumb enough to take your legal advice, --- I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert. Say it isn't true.. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-21   17:32:45 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #92. To: tpaine (#91) [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. [nolu chan #90] I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery. [nolu chan #90] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia. [tpaine #91] I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. Only, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if it is approved by tpaine. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-22   14:41:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #93. To: nolu chan (#92) I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. Over our discussions here, it's my opinion you're probably a frustrated clown who's failed the bar exam numerous times, and are now posting out of your mom's basement, pretending to be a legal expert. Say it isn't true.. In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer. Poor nolu, stuck in mommy's basement, pretending to be a legal expert... tpaine  posted on  2016-06-22   15:25:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #94. To: tpaine (#93) Poor, poor, pitiful tpaine. He was forced to "admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right)." When faced with the question of who decides what is an infringement, he is pathetically lost in space. [tpaine #91] I've never asked you, or anyone else to take my legal advice, as I don't pretend to be a legal beagle, like you. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. [nolu chan #90] I guess the only poor dumb bastard is tpaine, and the only people volunteering to get arrested for carrying in a designated gun free zone is the make believe people wandering about in the imagination of tpaine, acting upon his wingnuttery. [nolu chan #90] You now admit that the government does have the power to pass laws regulating the right to keep and bear arms. And as to who decides what qualifies as an infringement, that is neither the courts nor the legislature, but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Not tpaine. Definitely, not tpaine in Kookifornia. And I have pointed out that now your answer to "who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts?" is nobody but the make believe people who exist only in the imagination of tpaine. Indeed, if the recourse to an "opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution," this is a tacit admission that the Court is the proper authority to decide the issue. However, in the demented world of tpaine, the Opinion of the Supreme Court only counts if said opinion is approved by tpaine. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-23   17:07:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #95. To: nolu chan (#94) Poor nolu, stuck in mommy's basement, pretending to be a legal expert... Say it isn't true.. In reply, you've made it obvious you can't answer. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-23   17:16:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #96. To: tpaine (#95) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link] The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-24   16:33:54 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #97. To: nolu chan, plays the statist game. (#96) The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. In tpaine's world, -- the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. ---- If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. --- For example, in tpaine's world, -- President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up, despite nolu's statist opinions. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-24   17:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #98. To: tpaine (#97) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link] The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96] In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. [tpaine #97] Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up... tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. Keep digging that hole. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-25   22:53:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #99. To: nolu chan (#98) If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up... Tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole. What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept? You must have attended the Moscow University Law School. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-27   12:11:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #100. To: tpaine (#99) [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link] The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96] In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. [tpaine #97] Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up... [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-27   16:02:27 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #101. To: nolu chan mimics roscoe (#100) tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. --- Keep digging that hole. What hole? -- You're now denying our 'separation of powers' concept? You must have attended the Moscow University Law School. psychobabble Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Congrats . tpaine  posted on  2016-06-27   16:27:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #102. To: tpaine (#101) [tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss. I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link] The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96] In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. [tpaine #97] Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up... [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-28   13:18:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #103. To: nolu chan (#102) psychobabble Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Congrats . Only if you consider the below to be a single word. Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution. Do you really imagine anyone reads them? Dream on... tpaine  posted on  2016-06-28   14:24:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #104. To: tpaine (#103) Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Congrats . Only if you consider the below to be a single word. Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution. Do you really imagine anyone reads them? Dream on... Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities. And beating the shit out of you once a day is fun, like hitting a hit-me doll that keep popping back up to be hit again. It's almost therapeutic, reminding you daily what a shithead your are, and observing your helplessness in (non)response. You are definitely as entertaining as the typical TV sitcom. As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. Your assholery is on display for all to see. Anyway, to repeat my "one word" reply, which you can only piss yourself about, [tpaine #101] Finally you are reduced to one word idiotic replies, like roscoe. Only if you consider the below to be a single word. You have been reduced to a quivering chihuahua, hiding in a corner, sitting in a puddle of your own warm piss. I understand why a little ankle biter like you chooses to hide rather than confront the substance of your own bullshit. [tpaine #72] I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). [nolu chan #73] And who decides what qualifies as an infringement, tpaine or the legislature/courts? [tpaine #74] The people, ultimately. -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 [tpaine #28 - 2016-06-23, different thread at link] The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. [nolu chan #96] In tpaine's world of dementia, the people decide what infringes by seeing that judges are appointed that honor the Constitution. In tpaine's world of dementia, the the legislature and the executive may ignore any and all U.S. Supreme Court opinions. If one believes tpaine, that is, the judges of the courts decide what qualifies as an infringement by issuing opinions that the rest of the government is free to ignore. For example, in tpaine's world of dementia, President Obama is free to ignore the opinion affirming the Circuit Court in U.S. v. Texas (23 Jun 2016) and may continue with his policies regarding illegal aliens. [tpaine #97] Yep, Obama may do just that, --- at his political peril of impeachment. But impeachment will not happen this late in his term... Instead, President Trump will correct Obama's malfeasance. This is the way our republic is set up... [nolu chan #98] tpaine logic. SCOTUS opinions are "NOT binding on the executive." The President may ignore them, but if he does, he can be tried and convicted by the Senate for having committed high crimes or misdemeanors and thrown out of office. tpaine #99 - psychobabble. Keep digging that hole. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-29   12:02:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #105. To: nolu chan (#104) Well there you go again, trying to impress non existent readers with your boring repetitive legal opinions, none of which change the Constitution. Do you really imagine anyone reads them? Dream on... Of course they do. For the same reason some people read the comic strips or enjoy cartoons, some will enjoy watching you make an ass of yourself as you are pathetically incapable of defending your legal absurdities. For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional. As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. Your being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Congrats again. You're finally getting a glimmer of the principles inherent in our Constitution. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-29   13:54:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #106. To: tpaine (#105) [tpaine #105] For over 100 posts, on this thread alone, (and there are a LOT of other threads) we've exchanged opinions about legal absurdities. -- Obviously, I've defended my position, and you yours, --- But apparently , you imagine that repetitively posting our previous opinions proves you are 'the winner'. -- Instead, it proves you are delusional. No, you have just been taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. [nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. [tpaine #105] Your [sic] being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. This insanity is just indicative of your dementia. The Marilyn Mosby Professor of Law at the tpaine School for the Gifted sure has a demented idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says you are full of shit. It almost gets monotonous watching the Federal courts smack the shit out of your douchebaggery. Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 506 (1858) [517] The Constitution was not formed merely to guard the States against danger from foreign nations, but mainly to secure union and harmony at home, for if this object could be attained, there would be but little danger from abroad, and, to accomplish this purpose, it was felt by the statesmen who framed the Constitution and by the people who adopted it that it was necessary that many of the rights of sovereignty which the States then possessed should be ceded to the General Government, and that, in the sphere of action assigned to it, it should be supreme, and strong enough to execute its own laws by its own tribunals, without interruption from a State or from State authorities. And it was evident that anything short of this would be inadequate to the main objects for which the Government was established, and that local interests, local passions or prejudices, incited and fostered by individuals for sinister purposes, would lead to acts of aggression and injustice by one State upon the rights of another, which would ultimately terminate in violence and force unless there was a common arbiter between them, armed with power enough to protect and guard the rights of all by appropriate laws to be carried into execution peacefully by its judicial tribunals. The language of the Constitution by which this power is granted is too plain to admit of doubt or to need comment. It declares that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be passed in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.” But the supremacy thus conferred on this Government could not peacefully be maintained unless it was clothed with judicial power equally paramount in authority to carry it into execution, for if left to the courts of justice of the several States, conflicting decisions would unavoidably take place, and the local tribunals could hardly be expected to be always free 62 U. S. 518 from the local influences of which we have spoken. And the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, and the powers granted to the Federal Government, would soon receive different interpretations in different States, and the Government of the United States would soon become one thing in one State and another thing in another. It was essential, therefore, to its very existence as a Government that it should have the power of establishing courts of justice, altogether independent of State power, to carry into effect its own laws, and that a tribunal should be established in which all cases which might arise under the Constitution and laws and treaties of the United States, whether in a State court or a court of the United States, should be finally and conclusively decided. Without such a tribunal, it is obvious that there would be no uniformity of judicial decision, and that the supremacy, (which is but another name for independence) so carefully provided in the clause of the Constitution above referred to could not possibly be maintained peacefully unless it was associated with this paramount judicial authority. Accordingly, it was conferred on the General Government in clear, precise, and comprehensive terms. It is declared that its judicial power shall (among other subjects enumerated) extend to all cases in law and equity arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that, in such cases, as well as the others there enumerated, this court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as Congress shall make. The appellate power, it will be observed, is conferred on this court in all cases or suits in which such a question shall arise. It is not confined to suits in the inferior courts of the United States, but extends to all cases where such a question arises, whether it be in a judicial tribunal of a State or of the United States. And it is manifest that this ultimate appellate power in a tribunal created by the Constitution itself was deemed essential to secure the independence and supremacy of the General Government in the sphere of action assigned to it, to make the Constitution and laws of the United States uniform, and the same in every State, and to guard against evils which would 62 U. S. 519 inevitably arise from conflicting opinions between the courts of a State and of the United States, if there was no common arbiter authorized to decide between them. The importance which the framers of the Constitution attached to such a tribunal, for the purpose of preserving internal tranquillity, is strikingly manifested by the clause which gives this court jurisdiction over the sovereign States which compose this Union when a controversy arises between them. Instead of reserving the right to seek redress for injustice from another State by their sovereign powers, they have bound themselves to submit to the decision of this court, and to abide by its judgment. And it is not out of place to say here that experience has demonstrated that this power was not unwisely surrendered by the States, for, in the time that has already elapsed since this Government came into existence, several irritating and angry controversies have taken place between adjoining States in relation to their respective boundaries, and which have sometimes threatened to end in force and violence but for the power vested in this court to hear them and decide between them. The same purposes are clearly indicated by the different language employed when conferring supremacy upon the laws of the United States, and jurisdiction upon its courts. In the first case, it provides that “this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, shall be the supreme law of the land, and obligatory upon the judges in every State.” The words in italics show the precision and foresight which marks every clause in the instrument. The sovereignty to be created was to be limited in its powers of legislation, and if it passed a law not authorized by its enumerated powers, it was not to be regarded as the supreme law of the land, nor were the State judges bound to carry it into execution. And as the courts of a State, and the courts of the United States, might, and indeed certainly would, often differ as to the extent of the powers conferred by the General Government, it was manifest that serious controversies would arise between the authorities of the United States and of the States, which must be settled by force of arms unless some 62 U. S. 520 tribunal was created to decide between them finally and with out appeal. The Constitution has accordingly provided, as far as human foresight could provide, against this danger. And, in conferring judicial power upon the Federal Government, it declares that the jurisdiction of its courts shall extend to all cases arising under “this Constitution” and the laws of the United States -- leaving out the words of restriction contained in the grant of legislative power which we have above noticed. The judicial power covers every legislative act of Congress, whether it be made within the limits of its delegated powers or be an assumption of power beyond the grants in the Constitution. This judicial power was justly regarded as indispensable not merely to maintain the supremacy of the laws of the United States, but also to guard the States from any encroachment upon their reserved rights by the General Government. And as the Constitution is the fundamental and supreme law, if it appears that an act of Congress is not pursuant to and within the limits of the power assigned to the Federal Government, it is the duty of the courts of the United States to declare it unconstitutional and void. The grant of judicial power is not confined to the administration of laws passed in pursuance to the provisions of the Constitution, nor confined to the interpretation of such laws, but, by the very terms of the grant, the Constitution is under their view when any act of Congress is brought before them, and it is their duty to declare the law void, and refuse to execute it, if it is not pursuant to the legislative powers conferred upon Congress. And as the final appellate power in all such questions is given to this court, controversies as to the respective powers of the United States and the States, instead of being determined by military and physical force, are heard, investigated, and finally settled with the calmness and deliberation of judicial inquiry. And no one can fail to see that, if such an arbiter had not been provided in our complicated system of government, internal tranquillity could not have been preserved, and if such controversies were left to arbitrament of physical force, our Government, State and National, would soon cease to be Governments 62 U. S. 521 of laws, and revolutions by force of arms would take the place of courts of justice and judicial decisions. In organizing such a tribunal, it is evident that every precaution was taken which human wisdom could devise to fit it for the high duty with which it was intrusted. It was not left to Congress to create it by law, for the States could hardly be expected to confide in the impartiality of a tribunal created exclusively by the General Government without any participation on their part. And as the performance of its duty would sometimes come in conflict with individual ambition or interests and powerful political combinations, an act of Congress establishing such a tribunal might be repealed in order to establish another more subservient to the predominant political influences or excited passions of the day. This tribunal, therefore, was erected, and the powers of which we have spoken conferred upon it, not by the Federal Government, but by the people of the States, who formed and adopted that Government and conferred upon it all the powers, legislative, executive, and judicial, which it now possesses. And in order to secure its independence and enable it faithfully and firmly to perform its duty, it engrafted it upon the Constitution itself, and declared that this court should have appellate power in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So long, therefore, as this Constitution shall endure, this tribunal must exist with it, deciding in the peaceful forms of judicial proceeding the angry and irritating controversies between sovereignties which, in other countries, have been determined by the arbitrament of force. nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-30   15:39:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #107. To: nolu chan (#106) [nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. This is just indicative of your idea about how the system of checks and balances is supposed to work. And, of course, once again the U.S. Supreme Court says ----- Poor nolu, taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. --- Opinions of the various courts, including the SCOTUS, do not change the principles inherent in our Constitution, -- checks and balances being very important among those principles. tpaine  posted on  2016-06-30   17:00:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #108. To: tpaine (#107) (Edited) [tpaine #107] You're being sarcastic, and simplistic, -- but yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind. It is entertaining to watch your yukon bullshit and see how incapable you are at saying anything of substance. You are just batshit crazy. tpaine "COMMON SENSE" http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=104#C104 [nolu chan #104] As you say, everybody can legally just ignore SCOTUS decisions which bind nobody, and infringements of the Constitution and determined by the people, and corrected by the people who see that judges are appointed that honor our Constitution, so they can issue opinions that everybody can legally just ignore and which bind nobody. http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=105#C105 [tpaine #105] yes, that's the way our system of checks and balances is supposed to work. Because Benghazi! - - - - - #142">#142 [tpaine #142] No, they all give opinions that apply to the case at hand, -- these opinions do NOT change the constitution. [nolu chan #145] tpaine hallucinates that Obergefell says only the plaintiff is entitled to same-sex marriage, and he hallucinates that Roe v. Wade says only that Jane Roe is entitled to an abortion. - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46847&Disp=7#C7 In the long run, SCOTUS opinions don't mean much, as people,and the legislators they elect have the right to ignore them, and write new laws that circumvent their supposed edicts. tpaine posted on 2016-06-27 18:44:47 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46277&Disp=49#C49 The 2nd [Amendment] has always applied to the States, -- the 'incorporation' bull has just been used by statists to avoid compliance. tpaine posted on 2016-05-25 12:08:35 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=72#C72 I admit that our various levels of government have the power to make reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms (taking care that they do not infringe upon the right). tpaine posted on 2016-06-16 22:47:22 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46639&Disp=74#C74 -- If SCOTUS issues an opinion that infringes, the people, over time, --- ignore it, --- and see that judges are later appointed that honor our Constitution. tpaine posted on 2016-06-17 20:27:12 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46771&Disp=28#C28 The US Supreme Court has the authority to "interpret" the US Constitution, but their 'authority' is to issue opinions, -- opinions which are NOT binding on the legislative, -- or the executive branch. tpaine posted on 2016-06-23 21:26:13 ET - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=68#C68 nolu chan erroneously claims: -- When SCOTUS rules on a matter of constitutional law, the legislature cannot lawfully legislate contrary to the SCOTUS interpretation of the Constitution. - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40732 During a discussion with Nolu Chan, he asserted that an amendment repealing the 2nd could be ratified, and become a valid part of our Constitution. I contend such an amendment would be unconstitutional. - - - - - http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136 Does the Court strike down this part of the Constitution as unconstitutional? It has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment is unconstitutional.. - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-06-30   20:55:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #109. To: nolu chan (#108) Poor nolu, taking an ass whipping every day while making no substantive response. --- Opinions of the various courts, including the SCOTUS, do not change the principles inherent in our Constitution, -- checks and balances being very important among those principles. Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos --- Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". tpaine  posted on  2016-07-01   12:11:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #110. To: tpaine (#109) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. Your chaotic expression of your thoughts encourage laughter. Read and comprehend: Yes, of course, the system is supposed to work in a state of total chaos, like your mind. I said your mind works in a state of chaos. You express your belief that the legal system should work in a state of chaos, like your mind. Your nonsense evokes laughter. For example: http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=40620&Disp=136#C136 It [the Court] has the power to issue an opinion that such an amendment [to the Constitution] is unconstitutional. To most sane people, it is rib tickling funny that some moron would claim that the Court could strike down a part of the Constitution as unconstitutional. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-01   13:48:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #111. To: nolu chan (#110) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that.. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-01   16:44:59 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #112. To: tpaine (#111) [tpaine #111] Thank you, Sir! May I have another? Of course. Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States, and you are full of shit. Valerio v. City of San Diego, CASE NO: 12-CV-1200 W (WMC) (S.D. Cal. Jun 17, 2013), page 18, n. 10 Plaintiffs' substantive due process argument is only valid insofar as it asserts a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. There can be no Fifth Amendment violation here since Defendants are not federal actors. See Barron, 32 U.S. 243, 247 (1833). nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-03   12:23:22 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #113. To: nolu chan (#112) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that.. Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish. You're funny, in the head. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-03   12:46:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #114. To: tpaine (#113) Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment. Medcapgroup, LLC v. Mesa Pharmacy, Inc., 2:14-cv-00674-RCJ-NJK (D. Nev. Jul 29, 2014) Until 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment did not apply to the states. See Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.). nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-07   20:23:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #115. To: nolu chan (#114) Poor nolu, imagining that ANYTHING I've posted encourages chaos, much less "total chaos". Of course, nothing you post encourages chaos. --- Your nonsense evokes laughter. Fine, I laugh at you, -- you enjoy my humor. I can live with that.. Another spanking demonstrating the BoR does not apply to the States How soon you've lost your sense of humor, and are back to your spanking fetish. You're funny, in the head. Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course. As many as needed to persuade you -- Now you're asking and answering your own questions. Poor nolu... Crazy as a bedbug. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-07   21:31:53 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #116. To: tpaine (#115) Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course you may have yet another case. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment. JOHNSON v. CANNON, (M.D.Fla. 1996), 947 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1996) D. FIFTH AMENDMENT Defendant Cannon contends that Johnson cannot establish a cause of action pursuant to the Fifth Amendment because the protections afforded by this amendment are applicable only to federal actions. The Fifth Amendment is applicable to the actions of federal, not state government. See Barron v. Mayor City Council, 32 U.S. 243, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833); Newsom v. Vanderbilt Univ., 653 F.2d 1100, 1113 (6th Cir. 1981). Johnson has made no allegations that any of Armstrong's actions were made under color of federal law. The Court hereby grants the Motion to Dismiss as to any alleged Fifth Amendment violation. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-10   20:31:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #117. To: nolu chan (#116) You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-10   20:48:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #118. To: tpaine (#117) [tpaine #117] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Henry A. v. Willden, 2:10-cv-00528-RCJ-PAL (D. Nev. Feb 27, 2013) The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not apply to the states, Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250-51 (1833) (Marshall, C.J.), and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which does apply to the states, see U.S. Const. amend XIV, § 1 ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"), was not adopted until 1868. The Declaration of Rights that comprises Article I of the Nevada Constitution, which was adopted in 1864, was therefore necessary in order to impose certain restrictions upon the State of Nevada that were already imposed against the federal government under the Bill of Rights, and the Nevada Supreme Court has not interpreted the protections of the Declaration of Rights to exceed the scope of their federal counterparts. Michael W. Bowers, The Sagebrush State 43-44 (3rd ed., Univ. Nev. Press 2006); Michael W. Bowers, The Nevada State Constitution 24 (1993). It is settled law almost two centuries old. The BoR does not apply to the States. The privileges and immunities of U.S. citizens apply to the States via the 14th Amendment. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-11   13:33:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #119. To: nolu chan (#118) You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. tpaine  posted on  2016-07-11   14:42:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #120. To: tpaine (#119) [tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. BARTEE v. YANOFF, (E.D.Pa. 1981), 514 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Pa. 1981), n. 3 In his brief in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss, plaintiff relies primarily on the due process clause of the fifth amendment. However, plaintiff's cause of action may not be asserted directly under the fifth amendment since the fifth amendment proscribes federal conduct only, Feldman v. United States, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408 (1944); Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 247, 7 Pet. 243, 247, 8 L.Ed. 672 (1833). The alleged wrongdoing in this case occurred under color of state law. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-12   15:37:36 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #121. To: nolu chan, You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. (#120) tpaine  posted on  2016-07-12   15:53:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #122. To: tpaine (#121) #121. To: nolu chan, You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, Opinions do not change our Constitution. -- And you are quite mad to insist they do. (#120) tpaine posted on 2016-07-12 15:53:24 ET Reply Trace Private Reply - - - - - [tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Bell v. Hood, 71 F. Supp. 813 (S.D. Cal. 1947) History is clear that the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were adopted to secure certain common-law rights of the people against invasion by the Federal Government. For example, the Fourth Amendment provides that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated * * *." The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is a common-law right. Entich v. Carrington, 1765, 19 How.St.Tr. 1029; Boyd v. United States, 1886, 116 U.S. 616, 624-632, 6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 . Thus the Fourth Amendment did not create a new right, but merely gave a pre-existing common-law right constitutional protection from invasion by the Federal Government. Accordingly, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments do not limit state or individual action, but only federal action. Twining v. New Jersey, 1908, 211 U.S. 78, 29 S.Ct. 14, 53 L.Ed. 97 ; Spies v. Illinois, 1887, 123 U.S. 131, 8 S.Ct. 22, 31 L.Ed. 80; Barron v. Baltimore, 1833, 7 Pet. 243, 32 U.S. 243, 8 L.Ed. 672 . As was said in Feldman v. United States, 1944, 322 U.S. 487, 490, 64 S.Ct. 1082, 1083, 88 L.Ed. 1408, 154 A.L.R. 982: "* * * for more than one hundred years * * * one of the settled principles of our Constitution has been that these Amendments protect only against invasion of civil liberties by the Government whose conduct they alone limit." Cf. Burdeau v. McDowell, 1921, 256 U.S. 465, 41 S.Ct. 574, 65 L.Ed. 1048, 13 A.L.R. 1159; Weeks v. United States, 1914, 232 U.S. 383, 34 S.Ct. 341, 58 L.Ed. 652 , L.R.A. 1915B, 834, Ann.Cas. 1915C, 1177; Hall v. United States, 9 Cir., 1930, 41 F.2d 54; Brown v. United States, 9 Cir., 1926, 12 F.2d 926. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-13   12:53:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #123. To: nolu chan (#122) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-14   18:13:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #124. To: tpaine (#123) Thank you sir, may I have another? Of course you may have yet another case. As many as needed to persuade you that the BoR does not apply to the States. The rights are applied via the 14th Amendment. [tpaine #119] You keep posting your same tired opinions, over and over, On the contrary, I post a different court opinion with a different citation every time. it's just that there are so many cases over a period of almost two centuries, and they all say your crap has no merit. Have another new and different case which is virile, vigorous, and potent, just like the Barron v. Baltimore precedent of 1833. Vidal v. Garcia-Padilla, CIVIL NO. 14-1253 (PG) (D.P.R. Mar 08, 2016) B. The Doctrine of Selective Incorporation At the time of its adoption in 1871, the Bill of Rights - and, particularly, the individual liberties secured within it - did not apply against the States. See Barron ex rel. Tiernan v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243, 250 (1833)(noting that the amendments found in the Bill of Rights "contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments"); Lessee of Livingston v. Moore, 32 U.S. 469, 551-552 (1833)(same). Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was adopted to protect certain individual rights from interference by the States. And thereafter, the Supreme Court began using that Amendment's Due Process Clause to "incorporate" a number of the individual liberties found in the first ten Amendments against the States, "initiating what has been called a process of 'selective incorporation,' i.e. the Court began to hold that the Due Process Clause fully incorporates particular rights contained in the first [ten] Amendments." McDonald v. City of Chicago, III., 561 U.S. 742, 763 (2010)(alteration in original)(listing cases). The Fourteenth Amendment provides, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall...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." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. In the cases decided during this era, the Court fashioned the boundaries of the Due Process Clause by expressly incorporating those rights considered fundamental to a scheme of ordered liberty and system of justice. See id., 561 U.S. at 760-764; see also Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937)(indicating that due process protects those rights that are "the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty"); Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 148 (1968)(referring to those "fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions")(internal quotations omitted). Today, most of the rights found in the first ten Amendments have been incorporated. nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-15   0:44:48 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #125. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#124) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:45:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #126. To: tpaine (#125) tpaine #24, #34, #163, #125 - non-existent handle psychosis Poor sad yukon/tpaine in the ass, trapped like the rat that he is, has nothing better do than create and to address his pathetic non-responsive posts to very long non-existent handles which will not show up in any ping list. Future responses have been consolidated onto a single thread. See: http://www2.libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=46857&Disp=77#C77 For examples of his psychosis using non-existent handles, see: #76. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#75) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:37:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #24. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#23) Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:40:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #34. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#33) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:42:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #163. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#162) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:43:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - #125. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spam. (#124) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do? tpaine  posted on  2016-07-17   12:45:40 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nolu chan  posted on  2016-07-26   12:41:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   #127. To: Obsessive compulsive nolu chan, cannot stop spamming my replies. (#126) Poor sad nolu, obsessed with trying to prove that SCOTUS opinions change our Constitution. Why does he WANT to give that power to the supreme court? Because that's what socialists do tpaine  posted on  2016-07-27   18:18:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply   Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]  Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com