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

"Analysis: The Final State of the Presidential Race"

He’ll, You Pieces of Garbage

The Future of Warfare -- No more martyrdom!

"Kamala’s Inane Talking Points"

"The Harris Campaign Is Testament to the Toxicity of Woke Politics"

Easy Drywall Patch

Israel Preparing NEW Iran Strike? Iran Vows “Unimaginable” Response | Watchman Newscast

In Logansport, Indiana, Kids are Being Pushed Out of Schools After Migrants Swelled County’s Population by 30%: "Everybody else is falling behind"

Exclusive — Bernie Moreno: We Spend $110,000 Per Illegal Migrant Per Year, More than Twice What ‘the Average American Makes’

Florida County: 41 of 45 People Arrested for Looting after Hurricanes Helene and Milton are Noncitizens

Presidential race: Is a Split Ticket the only Answer?

hurricanes and heat waves are Worse

'Backbone of Iran's missile industry' destroyed by IAF strikes on Islamic Republic

Joe Rogan Experience #2219 - Donald Trump

IDF raids Hezbollah Radwan Forces underground bases, discovers massive cache of weapons

Gallant: ‘After we strike in Iran,’ the world will understand all of our training

The Atlantic Hit Piece On Trump Is A Psy-Op To Justify Post-Election Violence If Harris Loses

Six Al Jazeera journalists are Hamas, PIJ terrorists

Judge Aileen Cannon, who tossed Trump's classified docs case, on list of proposed candidates for attorney general

Iran's Assassination Program in Europe: Europe Goes Back to Sleep

Susan Olsen says Brady Bunch revival was cancelled because she’s MAGA.

Foreign Invaders crisis cost $150B in 2023, forcing some areas to cut police and fire services: report

Israel kills head of Hezbollah Intelligence.

Tenn. AG reveals ICE released thousands of ‘murderers and rapists’ from detention centers into US streets

Kamala Harris Touts Mass Amnesty Offering Fast-Tracked Citizenship to Nearly Every Illegal Alien in U.S.

Migration Crisis Fueled Rise in Tuberculosis Cases Study Finds

"They’re Going to Try to Kill Trump Again"

"Dems' Attempts at Power Grab Losing Their Grip"

"Restoring a ‘Great Moderation’ in Fiscal Policy"

"As attacks intensify, Trump becomes more popular"

Posting Articles Now Working Here

Another Test

Testing

Kamala Harris, reparations, and guaranteed income

Did Mudboy Slim finally kill this place?

"Why Young Americans Are Not Taught about Evil"

"New Rules For Radicals — How To Reinvent Kamala Harris"

"Harris’ problem: She’s a complete phony"

Hurricane Beryl strikes Bay City (TX)

Who Is ‘Destroying Democracy In Darkness?’

‘Kamalanomics’ is just ‘Bidenomics’ but dumber

Even The Washington Post Says Kamala's 'Price Control' Plan is 'Communist'

Arthur Ray Hines, "Sneakypete", has passed away.

No righT ... for me To hear --- whaT you say !

"Walz’s Fellow Guardsmen Set the Record Straight on Veep Candidate’s Military Career: ‘He Bailed Out’ "

"Kamala Harris Selects Progressive Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as Running Mate"

"The Teleprompter Campaign"

Good Riddance to Ismail Haniyeh

"Pagans in Paris"

"Liberal groupthink makes American life creepy and could cost Democrats the election".


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?
Source: The Shooters Log
URL Source: http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/jeb ... snonationalrighttogunownership
Published: Nov 15, 2015
Author: Dave Dolbee
Post Date: 2015-11-15 17:52:30 by Don
Keywords: None
Views: 29789
Comments: 205

Bush Says No National Right to Gun Ownership?

By Dave Dolbee published on November 10, 2015 in News

Jeb Bush recently made an appearance on the The Late Show with Stephen Colbert when the subject of whether there is a national right to gun ownership came up. Bush’s answer may be concerning to many, but let’s reserve judgment until we look at the entire story. However, whether his answer was his true opinion or a gaff, is concerning.

During the interview, Colbert asked a written-in question regarding the Constitution and whether it implied a national right to gun ownership. Jeb Bush, a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, veered a bit off course when his answer drifted to the Tenth Amendment and a state’s right to legislate gun ownership.

The question was a bit of a gotcha and certainly anti-Second Amendment in its nature. Jeb handled it well talking about how Florida was a pro-Second Amendment state under his leadership and to keep the guns out of hands of criminals or the mentally ill, they had background checks. He went on to say the common root of mass shootings was almost always proven to be mental illness. However, it was in the follow-up question that Jeb might have taken a left turn.

Second Amendment

Stephen Colbert: Well, the right to have an individual firearm to protect yourself is a national document, in the Constitution, so shouldn’t the way that is also be applied be national?

Jeb Bush: No. Not necessarily… There’s a Tenth Amendment to our country, the Bill of Rights has a Tenth Amendment that powers are given to the states to create policy, and the federal government is not the end all and be all. That’s an important value for this country, and it’s an important federalist system that works quite well.

On the face, that is pretty damning to the argument of whether the Second Amendment is a right or privilege. Jeb’s campaign quickly got out in front of the issue with a clarification. The clarification reiterated that Jeb is a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. Jeb’s argument was that states should be able to use the Tenth Amendment to pass laws that expand gun rights—but that is double-edged sword.

Governor Bush is a strong Second Amendment advocate and reiterated his view that the federal government should not be passing new gun control laws. He believes in states rights and as Governor of Florida, he used the Tenth Amendment to expand gun rights with a “Six Pack of Freedom” bill and received an A+ rating from the NRA.

A Double-Edged Sword…

While I like the federal government not being able to limit my rights, I do not favor a state being able to limit my rights. One of my degrees is in political science and I have taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law. That being said, I am far from a Constitutional scholar.

However, I believe I understand a bit of where Jeb was trying to get to. The states are supposed to have as much power as the federal government—this is the heart of the federal system. According to the Tenth Amendment, the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.

So, how can using the Tenth Amendment to give states’ rights allow those same states to regulate the Second Amendment? Isn’t that the purpose of the Bill of Rights? Doesn’t the Bill of Rights grant you and me specific rights that shall not be infringed? Do states have the power to expand or limit freedom of speech or unlawful search or seizure? Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights.

In hindsight, like I have already stated, I can see where he was trying to go with his argument. The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms. At that point, the common belief that the Second Amendment is an absolute right is moot. Perhaps the best way to expand our Second Amendment rights is through the states. It is not perfect, but there is less risk of an all out gun ban that way.

You’ll have to decide for yourself what Jeb really meant. In the end, we all wish Jeb had said the Second Amendment is a Constitutional right and neither a federal nor a state government has the power to limit that right. Whether or not he could have backed that up in front of the Supreme Court, is the attitude most, if not all, of us would like him to have taken.

I am sure most of you have already picked out your preferred candidate. I am not trying to sway your opinion toward or against any particular candidate or party. However, on the subject of the Second Amendment and gun rights, where does the state under the Tenth Amendment or the federal government’s authority end? Where should it end?

Share your answers or opinions regarding Jeb’s answer of the Tenth Amendment in the comment section.

Share This!

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

#7. To: Don (#0)

"Both the federal government and the state must respect the Bill of Rights."

This statement, coming from a guy who has "taken more than a couple of classes on the Constitution and Constitutional law", is absurd.

As written, the Bill of Rights applied ONLY to the federal government. It's in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.

"The court has allowed the states some latitude to pass and enforce certain laws regulating firearms."

States have the ultimate power. The federal government only has the powers given to them by the states. States can do whatever the hell they want, provided it does not violate their state constitution.

Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-16   9:50:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: misterwhite (#7)

Liberals want ONE constitution to cover everyone. ONE Bill of Rights to cover everyone. And five justices on ONE court to interpret those documents

No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind.

The rights are God given and just because of your fetish for the people who wear black robes to hide penis pumps try to change simple words are winning, doesn't mean they, and Jeb! are right.

What exactly in your feeble mind can the government NOT do? What rights can they not regulate into irrelevancy?

Meanwhile, your buddy Jon Corzine is still not in jail. Maybe he owns a company who makes and 'services' penis pumps? Do you work for him as a field rep?

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-16   12:26:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Dead Culture Watch (#13)

"No....the language is clear, 'Shall not be Infringed' comes to mind."

What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-16   15:10:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: misterwhite (#16)

What about "Congress shall make NO law ..." in the first amendment? Yet free speech is regulated, isn't it?

Yes, it is.

Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread, that tells the rest of the story. Why after what I wrote to you, I really am laughing like hell at you for going down this road.

You really can't make this up...lmao!

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-16   17:30:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: Dead Culture Watch (#19)

"Please refer to the rest of my original post to you in this thread"

I have no interest in penis pumps.

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-16   17:51:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: misterwhite (#20)

I have no interest in penis pumps.

DCW does.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-16   18:58:48 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Roscoe (#29)

DCW does.

Do you REALLY want to start an insult war with me? Because you will most certainly lose.

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-16   19:17:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: Dead Culture Watch (#33)

Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-16   19:24:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: Roscoe (#34)

"Your penis pump buddies voted for substantive due process and against original intent in McDonald v. Chicago."

Yep. And DCW cheered, totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms.

Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).

misterwhite  posted on  2015-11-16   20:43:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 39.

#41. To: misterwhite (#39)

totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms.

Yep. The braying asses hate the truth, hate inherent state police powers, hate dual sovereignty, hate the separation of powers, hate the Tenth Amendment, hate republican forms of representative government, hate a Constitution limiting the federal government to delegated powers, and hate original intent. But they love their black robed philosopher princes, penis pumps, and judicial legislation.

This is partly due to their extraordinary stupidity, partly due to their willful ignorance, and partly due to just plain old ignorance.

Roscoe  posted on  2015-11-16 20:57:28 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#54. To: misterwhite (#39)

Yep. And DCW cheered, totally ignorant of what it will mean to the right to keep and bear arms.

OK liar.

Link or stfu

Dead Culture Watch  posted on  2015-11-17 10:56:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#58. To: misterwhite, Roscoe (#39)

Already the 2nd Circuit Court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect assault-style weapons because they're not commonly used for self-defense in the home (a Heller ruling).

NYSRPA v Cuomo, WDNY 1:13-cv-00291-WMS, Doc 140, OPINION AND ORDER (12/31/13)

At 5:

In resolving the pending motions, this Court notes that whether regulating firearms is wise or warranted is not a judicial question; it is a political one. This Court’s function is thus limited to resolving whether New York’s elected representatives acted within the confines of the United States Constitution in passing the SAFE Act. Undertaking that task, and applying the governing legal standards, the majority of the challenged provisions withstand constitutional scrutiny. As explained in more detail below, although so-called “assault weapons” and largecapacity magazines, as defined in the Safe Act, may — in some fashion — be “in common use,” New York has presented considerable evidence that its regulation of these weapons is substantially related to the achievement of an important governmental interest. Accordingly, the Act does not violate the Second Amendment in this respect.

NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 19:

In Heller, the Supreme Court, based on an extensive textual and historical analysis, announced that the Second Amendment's operative clause codified a pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons. Recognizing, however, that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited, Heller emphasized that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Instead, the Second Amendment protects only those weapons in common use by citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense.

NYSRPA v Cuomo, 2nd Cir. 14-36-cv (19 Oct 2015) at 21:

McDonald was a landmark case in one respect—the Court held for the first time that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against the states. Otherwise, McDonald did not expand upon Heller's analysis and simply reiterated Heller's assurances regarding the viability of many gun-control provisions.

nolu chan  posted on  2015-11-17 13:09:36 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 39.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/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