The Second Amendment…..Dead and Buried thanks to “We the People”

[mrjarrell]

Here's an author who takes a different than normal view of the 2nd Amendment fight and what needs to be done. Not sure I agree or disagree with him, but there's some fodder for thought in what his words and the solutions he addresses for a restoration of the 2nd.

The Second Amendment

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't know where to belong; it's just a giant Gordian knot of wrong.

Have to meditate on this one to give simplified response.

 

[Chris Woodard]

Here's an author who takes a different than normal view of the 2nd Amendment fight and what needs to be done. Not sure I agree or disagree with him, but there's some fodder for thought in what his words and the solutions he addresses for a restoration of the 2nd.

The Second Amendment

As the author of said article, I can only thank you for sharing. If nothing else, at least I've sparked your thinking process. Whether you ultimately agree with me or not is irrelevant. You will have made your decision through the thought process. That is all anyone can ask.

Thanks,

Chris

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Chris, so, is your point that (we have let) Congress has so over stepped its bounds and spilled way over the banks in the Commerce Clause that it will take a lot of hard work to put it back in its place regardless of the Second Amendment?

 

[rugertoter]

The Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights for that matter, seems pretty straight forward and simple to me. The last thing we need is another "player" giving their two cents worth about the subject. Society and government needs to quit trying to "read between the lines" and take it for face value. Good post just the same though.

 

[Chris Woodard]

Chris, so, is your point that (we have let) Congress has so over stepped its bounds and spilled way over the banks in the Commerce Clause that it will take a lot of hard work to put it back in its place regardless of the Second Amendment?

Yes, in a way. We have continued to elect corrupt politicians and then for the most part we forget about them till the next election. The majority have absolutely no idea what they have done either in the House, or Senate. We can easily change this. We each have 2 senators and 1 representative we need to track. Whenever any of them either introduces or cosponsors any bill that falls outside the Enumerated powers, they need to be made aware that they have violated their oath of office, and as such, are subject to removal as per the Constitution. All it will take is for just a few to get removed and we will then have the attention of the others.

The Commerce Clause is by far the most abused. However, Clause 1 of Article 1 § 8 is another excuse to be able to invoke the Commerce Clause. Clause 1 is just a preamble to the Enumerated powers which immediately follow. As a preamble, Clause 1 does NOT, in itself, give any additional power to Congress and this is borne out by the Federalist papers.

The scenario I laid out in the article is one of two possibilities. It could be argued that the states are not bound by the Enumerated powers, and the only restriction on them are the ones listed Article1 § 10. Outside that, and also as per the Tenth Amendment, they are pretty much able to do as they please.

However we have that pesky little Article that basically says the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So, while the Tenth Amendment gives the states considerable latitude, the fact that the Second Amendment is still part of the Constitution, the Second Amendment has ALWAYS applied to the states as well. We basically didn’t need Heller and McDonald. The authority of the Second Amendment has always been there.

We MUST stop the abuse of Article 1 § 8. Once that is done, everything else falls into place. Approaching this on the Second Amendment level is a terrible waste of time, money, resources and energy.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Chris, thanks for the response. That clears up many questions that I had. I thought this was a neo-Lost Causer argument that the states can do whatever they want as the Constitution does not apply to them.

Yes, the Commerce Clause is the big hammer of unlimited government. Overturning Wickard would go a long way to destroying federal gun control. Even small steps like Lopez will help put the monster back in the bottle.

Approaching this on the Second Amendment level is a terrible waste of time, money, resources and energy.

I disagree. Even if the NFA, the GCA and SSA were repealed, there would still be the problematic states--CA, NJ, NY, MA, IL and HI. This is why Second Amendment litigation is necessary to bring these states in line.

 

[Chris Woodard]

I disagree. Even if the NFA, the GCA and SSA were repealed, there would still be the problematic states--CA, NJ, NY, MA, IL and HI. This is why Second Amendment litigation is necessary to bring these states in line.

Kirk

At one point I felt as you do, so I see where you are coming from.

My view with these problematic states is, under your idea, a suit in each and every one of these states will need to be brought to court. Time consuming and expensive with no guaranteed outcome.

To illustrate my point, just look at Heller and McDonald. Although McDonald ruled that the Second Amendment also applied to the states, the ruling left way too much leeway for the states to continue to restrict as is the cases of Chicago, and DC. The only thing McDonald did was allow a person to have a handgun in their home. But McDonald did nothing about how the states and cities can make it difficult to even own a handgun, let alone have one in their home. There are numerous suits in the wings that 1) the SC will need to decide to hear the case and 2) the outcome is not guaranteed. As I said earlier, time consuming and expensive.

I think what needs to be made clear to not only the problematic states, but ALL states is that under Article 6 Clause 2, the constitution (which includes the Second Amendment) is the Supreme law of the land. But that in itself doesn’t go far enough. Without cleaning up the abuses of the Enumerated powers, the states will just find another way to impose their will. Also, if it is made VERY clear that the Constitution IS the Supreme law of the land, we won’t even need McDonald. In fact, if this happens, both McDonald and Heller will need to be repealed as they allow the states to continue their abuses.

Chris

 

[SSGSAD]

I cannot say, wht I really want to say, so I'll just say this;
if bho, gets reelected with a dem majority, in both houses,
then watch what happens in the next four years after that...
If the U.S. isn't destroyed, then if nothing happens, WE, are no more
than the "sheeple" that WE talk about here, on INGO ..... JMHO

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Although McDonald ruled that the Second Amendment also applied to the states, the ruling left way too much leeway for the states to continue to restrict as is the cases of Chicago, and DC.

I am uncertain what you mean by that but the Supreme Court, as it is mandated to do, decided the issue before it. The Supreme Court does not issue sweeping or advisory rulings as the courts of other nations. They do not issue magic wand decisions (before Heller I spent most of my discussion time explaining why machine guns were not at issue).

In fact, if this happens, both McDonald and Heller will need to be repealed as they allow the states to continue their abuses.

They do not. They rule on what was before them. Remember the Supreme Court does not go looking for things to rule upon.

As in Heller you must have a clean issue of whether keeping in the home is Constitutionally protected before you branch out. Those branches are bubbling up as we speak. Look at how the First Amendment was brought to the states--slowly and with much litigation.

"I want my pony and I want it now" works with mommy and daddy, not with the Supreme Court.

But McDonald did nothing about how the states and cities can make it difficult to even own a handgun, let alone have one in their home.

No, but that is Ezell v. City of Chicago. Did you read this opinion?

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AN0LP3ZU.pdf

 

[PaulJF]

Serious question... What law allows the States to pass a constitution or law that is contrary to the Constitution? I "thought" all States had to allow a republican form and follow the Supreme Law of the land. I really, really, don't get it.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Paul, that's the Lost Causer Constitution. The Lost Causers felt that the states could do whatever they wanted in order to deny civil rights to African-Americans. This continued up into the 1960s as the "states' rights" movement.

Our RKBA rights will be won back one hill at a time. There is no unicorn, there is no magic wand. You cannot hold your breath and throw a tantrum on the rug and get your pony. This fight will take time, effort and money and lots of all three.

For example, the way forward in California: No Lawyers - Only Guns and Money: CalGuns Foundation's Strategy For Carry In California

 

[Westside]

 

[CarmelHP]

I don't know where to belong; it's just a giant Gordian knot of wrong.

Have to meditate on this one to give simplified response.

I'm with ya'.

 

[Libertarian01]

To All,

Once the major battles are won is there any way to keep the local yocals (Ex. Chicago) from continuing to drag the fight out by putting in place BS rules???

It seems like every victory is only a paper victory in the truly anti-gun political establishments. Once they are ruled against by the courts on Rules A, B, and C they put in place rules D, E, and F ad infinitum.

I remember hearing one case against local gerrymandering where the Judge was becoming frustrated with the locals inability to follow the law so he called in his young legal assistant and basically said, "Here are the rules. Here is the map. Draw the districts." The young legal assistant sat down, used common sense, and Voila, a legal, unbiased map of the districts that the Judge put in place.

I guess my real question would be, "How do we force political establishments to obey the law in a timely manner?"

Regards,

Doug

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I guess my real question would be, "How do we force political establishments to obey the law in a timely manner?"

We sue them.

We elect politicians who will follow the Constitution.

 

[Bill of Rights]

We sue them.

We elect politicians who will follow the Constitution.

All due respect, Kirk, but how does suing them fix anything when it is OUR money with which they pay any judgment against them?

If we're going to go that route, those suits need to be paid by the individuals named, and out of their own pockets.

I like your second suggestion much, much better.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kutnupe14]

Serious question... What law allows the States to pass a constitution or law that is contrary to the Constitution? I "thought" all States had to allow a republican form and follow the Supreme Law of the land. I really, really, don't get it.

That is exactly what the founders intended. The Constitution wa only meant to check the power of the Federal Govt. The other states had self-determination. A bunch of people forget about this, or slyly ignore this part of American History. In theory states, if the Constitution held its original meaning, could restrict an individuals "right to be arms," and it not be a Constitutional issue. It wasn't until the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that this changed.

 

[Stschil]

We sue them.

We elect politicians who will follow the Constitution.

All due respect, Kirk, but how does suing them fix anything when it is OUR money with which they pay any judgment against them?

If we're going to go that route, those suits need to be paid by the individuals named, and out of their own pockets.

I like your second suggestion much, much better.

Blessings,
Bill

Sue them, Yes!

Require the defendant to use private, not public funds, to finance the defense, Yes!

Be involved in the actual running of the Nation by remaining politically informed and vigilant of the actions of those elected to represent us, Yes!

I will add this: Strip any public official of all taxpayer funded benefits should they be removed from office due to them violating the public trust. No pension, no medical care, nothin!
At this point, there is no incentive for our "officials" to tow the line. I'm actually in favor of removing these bennys from anyone not in office, to include former Presidents. Not a single one of them living is without the means to support themselves, why should we, the taxpayers, do it for them?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

All due respect, Kirk, but how does suing them fix anything when it is OUR money with which they pay any judgment against them?

We make the judgment payable by the individual politician(s) as Florida did. The nonsense will cease overnight.