|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 8:16:34 GMT -5
law.jrank.org/pages/10069/Second-Amendment.htmlGregr and I were discussing this in another thread. And I was asking if anyone knew about how the law or courts ruled on the 2nd amendment. There are many varied opinions on what the 2nd amendment states and how to interpret it. So I did a little research this morning. This is something that I found that talks about the court ruling on the 2nd amendment over the years. Maybe it's time for the States and Congress to think about revising the 2nd amendment and make it clear what the law should be. Because after reading the link above I'm still confused about what the courts say the meaning of the 2nd amendment really means. Presser, Miller and other Supreme Court rulings have left confusion in their wake. Heller is the only ruling that makes sense and it's incomplete and of limited scope. I think it's either time for the Supreme Court to take a 2nd amendment case and make a decision on the total meaning of the 2nd amendment or if not then the Congress and the States to make it clear what they want for a 2nd amendment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 8:45:34 GMT -5
If States where smart and ran properly each one would have a militia to protect the State. In fact if I was just starting at 21 year old I would get rid of my SS number and not fill out a W-4 at a company. I would be a citizen of the State I live in and not a USA federal citizen. I would owe the Government nothing or be regulated by Federal laws and regulations. This all ties in with the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. What rights do we have per what type of citizen in the USA. The SS number and W-4 took most of our rights away. The Supreme Court know this and will not take up the 2nd amendment.
|
|
|
|
Post by greghopper on Sept 8, 2020 8:57:36 GMT -5
Good luck with all of that....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 9:00:11 GMT -5
Understanding that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow We the People to resist an overbearing, despotic government, and that no government has the right to restrict that right, and further understanding that the militia was organized, maintained and run by The People, and was made up of The People, and that the term "well regulated" meant only to be well trained or in proper functioning order, there`s zero ambiguity in, or interpretation necessary in the words:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
If paraphrased, in today's vernacular, it might well read:
"Because a well armed people are necessary to ensure the safety and security of a free people, the right of these people to keep and bear arms, will not be infringed."
It has rightly been said that the Second protects and defends all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These are Natural Rights, that is to say, rights granted to us by The Creator, and NOT government. What government did not give, government may not take away, restrain, or constrict. There is absolutely NOTHING unclear or needing further discussion in the words: "...shall not be infringed."
|
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 9:15:11 GMT -5
Understanding that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow We the People to resist an overbearing, despotic government, and that no government has the right to restrict that right, and further understanding that the militia was organized, maintained and run by The People, and was made up of The People, and that the term "well regulated" meant only to be well trained or in proper functioning order, there`s zero ambiguity in, or interpretation necessary in the words: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If paraphrased, in today's vernacular, it might well read: "Because a well armed people are necessary to ensure the safety and security of a free people, the right of these people to keep and bear arms, will not be infringed." It has rightly been said that the Second protects and defends all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These are Natural Rights, that is to say, rights granted to us by The Creator, and NOT government. What government did not give, government may not take away, restrain, or constrict. There is absolutely NOTHING unclear or needing further discussion in the words: "...shall not be infringed." Again I was looking for Court rulings on the 2nd amendment. You and I both have our own opinions on what the 2nd amendment means to us. But I was wanting to know what the Supreme Court has rules over the years. That is why I posted the link talking about Heller, Miller and Presser. Are there any other times where the US Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment? There have been rulings by the appellate and district Federal Courts but the Supreme court rulings trump those lower court ruling. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2020 9:17:33 GMT -5
Understanding that the primary purpose of the Second Amendment is to allow We the People to resist an overbearing, despotic government, and that no government has the right to restrict that right, and further understanding that the militia was organized, maintained and run by The People, and was made up of The People, and that the term "well regulated" meant only to be well trained or in proper functioning order, there`s zero ambiguity in, or interpretation necessary in the words: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." If paraphrased, in today's vernacular, it might well read: "Because a well armed people are necessary to ensure the safety and security of a free people, the right of these people to keep and bear arms, will not be infringed." It has rightly been said that the Second protects and defends all the other rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. These are Natural Rights, that is to say, rights granted to us by The Creator, and NOT government. What government did not give, government may not take away, restrain, or constrict. There is absolutely NOTHING unclear or needing further discussion in the words: "...shall not be infringed." Again I was looking for Court rulings on the 2nd amendment. You and I both have our own opinions on what the 2nd amendment means to us. But I was wanting to know what the Supreme Court has rules over the years. That is why I posted the link talking about Heller, Miller and Presser. Are there any other times where the US Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment? There have been rulings by the appellate and district Federal Courts but the Supreme court rulings trump those lower court ruling. The Constitution is the definitive answer on what our rights are, NOT politicians or even the supremes. The courts get it wrong all the time, and they have no authority to usurp constitutional rights. Period. |
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 9:42:10 GMT -5
If States where smart and ran properly each one would have a militia to protect the State. In fact if I was just starting at 21 year old I would get rid of my SS number and not fill out a W-4 at a company. I would be a citizen of the State I live in and not a USA federal citizen. I would owe the Government nothing or be regulated by Federal laws and regulations. This all ties in with the 2nd amendment and the Constitution. What rights do we have per what type of citizen in the USA. The SS number and W-4 took most of our rights away. The Supreme Court know this and will not take up the 2nd amendment. A lot of Early American Farmers seemed to think like you Wayne. They could not store their corn very long as it would rot. So they made Whisky with their corn and use the Whisky to trade and barter with. Whisky Stores a lot longer than corn. There was a Tax created and put on the Whisky in order to help fund the US Government. The Farmers were a lot like you Wayne. They didn't want to pay the tax on their hard earned Whiskey so they rose up in rebellion. George Washington himself a big Whiskey Producer and President of the USA at the time raised a Federal Army and put down the Whiskey Rebellion by force of arms. We have been paying a federal tax on Whiskey ever since. So good luck with not paying your SS and the other stuff you said. |
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Sept 8, 2020 9:48:10 GMT -5
Again I was looking for Court rulings on the 2nd amendment. You and I both have our own opinions on what the 2nd amendment means to us. But I was wanting to know what the Supreme Court has rules over the years. That is why I posted the link talking about Heller, Miller and Presser. Are there any other times where the US Supreme Court ruled on the 2nd amendment? There have been rulings by the appellate and district Federal Courts but the Supreme court rulings trump those lower court ruling. The Constitution is the definitive answer on what our rights are, NOT politicians or even the supremes. The courts get it wrong all the time, and they have no authority to usurp constitutional rights. Period. I know that is what You think. But the rest of us have to listen to the Supreme Court. And I was just curious as to what the Supreme Court had to say about the 2nd amendment. I knew about Heller and Miller but there are other cases that I was not up to date on. That is the reason why I asked the question and posted that link. BTW Someone officially has to determine what the laws are and if they are constitutional. That is on the US Constitution also. The Constitution setup three separate branches of the Federal Government. I want to know more about which of the founding fathers decided what the 2nd amendment words were. As words are important. I know that Thomas Jefferson didn't agree with the others on everything. And they wrote and spoke differently back then as compared to now days. The link that I posted was from some legal minds which is the type of information I was looking for in here. Like Greg Hopper Said. Good luck with that! ha ha. |
|
