Platinum Supporter
- Messages
- 871
- Reactions
- 1,987
What???
I know you're not really going to read this. It's the ceremonial song and dance we do just before the allegations of arrogance, know it all, etc. are made to cover up the fact that you aren't up to date on your history. This ain't my first rodeo.
In order to understand gun Rights, you have to understand the whole topic of Rights (or more accurately unalienable Rights) versus "rights" that are actually mere privileges to be doled out by the government. When you interact with judges, attorneys, and especially legislators you have to know the differences, the nuances, and be able to argue them.
High school civics teaches that there are three branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. They are all co -equals, blah, blah, blah. Clean the blackboard. That's B.S. You have FOUR branches of government: Legislative, Executive, Judicial, and the mainstream media. The mainstream media makes and controls the narrative. They control the other branches of government. The United States Supreme Court unilaterally set themselves up as the final arbiters of what the law is back in 1803 (IIRC) in a case called Marbury v. Madison. To this date, not even Jesus himself has challenged the high Court on this. Sooo... by extension, judicial rulings take precedence over statutes themselves. What the courts say the law is, IS what the law means and IS. All else is secondary to this unequivocal fact.
If you and I walk into a courtroom and you have 50 layman dictionaries to prove your case and I come with a Blacks Law Dictionary and a couple of standing precedents from court cases, you are going to lose. ALL judges know this and, at the end of the day, while your legislators may or may not know the law, they know the Judicial branch of government rules the roost. So, here are the Cliff's notes. Follow the law:
"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}
"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
Let us define this word unalienable a bit more closely and then talk about it:
Unalienable -Incapable of being aliened, that is, sold and transferred. (Blacks Law Dictionary online)
So, let us recap:
You have Rights that preceded the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution
Those Rights are natural, inherent, absolute, unalienable, and God given (regardless of whether you acknowledge a God or not)
Those unalienable Rights are not transferable
Now, let me give you another court ruling:
"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'and to 'secure,'not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
According to Wikipedia:
"The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is absolute and unqualified."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States
In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!" Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."
-Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:
"The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States.
..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
So, let me see:
1) The Right to keep and bear Arms exists
2) The Right is not dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence
3) In 1875 the United States Supreme declared both 1 and 2 to be the law
4) The high Court had the opportunity to over-rule the state precedents in the above decision (Cruikshank), but didn't
5) So, by law, the FIRST time the United States Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment, it had been declared to be inherent, natural, God given, unalienable, absolute, irrevocable and above the law.
FACT: The Constitution of the United States does not give the United States Supreme Court the authority to alter their decisions once they have interpreted the law. To do so would be legislating from the bench. The reality is, that is exactly what the United States Supreme Court did. How did the high Court get away with it and what does Heller REALLY say? I will answer that IF you really want to know, but one more civics lesson. In order to circumvent the Constitution and change the law, the high Court usurped powers which is another long explanation. But, you need to know what George Washington said with regards to the process the United States Supreme Court used:
"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." Farewell Address 1796
Would you like to continue this conversation?
Conversation? I think you already explained your intent in your opening paragraph. I certainly don't need to be lectured on the history of the United States; especially not how it pertains to the 2nd Amendment.
Keep fighting the good fight against those who would seek to do the 2nd Amendment harm, I honestly appreciate your efforts! I see you reside in Georgia, so I will say (in good humor of course), perhaps your lectures will be more applicable there so those two Senate seats don't stay blue forever!