Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It has been clear to me for a long time, that you have been fed the lies you want to hear.
Some how Kennesaw GA. is defined as CONGRESS, with the lies you wish to use to debate this theory, that the word CONGRESS has a very broad definition, in the law books.
Again, if the US Constitution is the law of the land, how can states alter the 2nd amendment how they wish for their own individual states? They totally redefine the US 2nd amendment, in each of their own Constitutions. Yet there they are, upheld by the supreme court.
You answered your own question, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, then it falls within the legal law of the Constitution.
What altering by individual states of the 2nd Amendment are you referring to? There probably is already a Supreme Court hearing that can explain it to you.
You answered your own question, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, then it falls within the legal law of the Constitution.
What altering by individual states of the 2nd Amendment are you referring to? There probably is already a Supreme Court hearing that can explain it to you.
No, I shut down your argument that was based on lies you have been fed and truly believed.
You tried your best to make the word CONGRESS as broad as you could as a catch all.
The altering of the 2nd amendment in my state....
In 1866 The Texas Constitutional Convention which met at Austin in March-April of 1866 reenacted the arms provision of 1845 verbatim: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State."
Pretty straight forward and in line with the US Constitution. Worded differently, by in line. Why have it if the US Constitution was the law of the land?
Then came the Reconstruction/Reconstitution Period, when the Federal government placed a puppet government and replaced governor.
A key issue was whether the freed slaves would be entitled to all of the rights of citizenship, at a time when the federal fourteenth amendment was working its way through Congress. Republicans held that blacks were already entitled to all rights of citizenship, including an individual right under the second amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The fourteenth amendment was promoted by Republicans to end any dispute about the matter.
Texas constitutional convention of 1866 at Austin, was most progressive and tolerant of freedman's rights of all southern states. The black man could be armed.
The Texas legislature considered and rejected adoption of the fourteenth amendment in October 1866.
The militia laws in Texas at that time, according to a congressman, "authorize anybody and everybody ... to organize a militia hostile to the Government.
Texas rejected the fourteenth amendment because it was perceived as protecting from state infringement privileges such as bearing arms and associating into militia companies.
On November 6, 1866, the Texas legislature passed its first gun control measure, which was also the closest Texas came to adopting a black code provision to disarm freedmen. The act declared that "it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to carry fire-arms on the enclosed premises or plantation of any citizen, without the consent of the owner or proprietor,"
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THROWS TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
In the period of fall 1866 through summer 1867, carpetbaggers descended upon the South. Following orders from Washington, D.C., General Phil Sheridan deposed Texas governor Throckmorton and installed E. M. Pease. Sheridan, according to a partisan account, "under the inspiration of an incendiary press and the Northern Union Leagues, was permitting the Texas negroes to run amuck with guns and knives." In the wake of this military autocracy, a constitutional convention was called.
With the Puppet Government in place, the convention which met at Austin between June and December 1868 was called pursuant to reconstruction acts of Congress requiring Southern states to ratify the fourteenth amendment and to adopt new constitutions consistent with that amendment. The convention proceedings reflected the Republican view that the fourteenth amendment would protect the right of all, including freedmen, to keep and bear arms.
Joint Resolution No. 13, p. 166--The refusal to ratify the fourteenth proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States. As the first section of this amendment guarantees freedmen their civil rights as citizens of the United States and of the States in which they reside, the rejection of the amendment ... is subject to the further objection of being a rejection of a condition precedent since imposed by the military reconstruction act.
WHEREAS, The custom of carrying concealed weapons is openly indulged by spectators and others who visit this Convention, in the lobbies and elsewhere; therefore be it:
Resolved:, That the Convention do order that no person shall hereafter be allowed in this hall, who carries belted on his person, revolvers or other deadly weapons.(Clearly a violation of the US 2nd amendment)
The inhibitions of power enunciated in articles from one to eight inclusive, and thirteen, of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, deny to the States, as well as to the General Government, the exercise of the powers therein reserved to the people, and shall never be exercised by the government of this State.
Morgan C. Hamilton, the committee chairman, explained this provision as follows:
It will be observed that section 3 embodies the substance of ten of the sections in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1845, it being the opinion of your Committee that the inhibitions enumerated in the said ten sections are fully covered by the nine articles mentioned as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, thus dispensing with a long string of sections which are deemed useless.
The committee's report is highly significant in several respects. First, it reaffirms the understanding that the federal second amendment protected individual rights, for it "embodies the substance" of the guarantee in the 1845 Texas Constitution that "every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State."
Secondly, the report clearly recognizes that the fourteenth amendment, which the proposed state bill of rights was precisely fashioned to emulate, made "articles from one to eight inclusive ... of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States" applicable to the states.
Thirdly, failure to adopt the proposed new bill of rights signified no rejection of its principles because the 1845 provisions guaranteed the same protection as the federal Bill of Rights.
Instead of adopting the committee's version, the convention adopted a modified version of the old Texas Bill of Rights. A clause was added to the arms guarantee so that it stated: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe."
Under the new version, "person" replaced "citizen"--an expansion of the protected class which would include blacks in the event any lingering doubts existed about their citizenship. The granting of legislative power to regulate the bearing of arms meant that the right was no longer "absolute," but still its exercise could not be prohibited. The intent was to authorize the legislature to ban carrying concealed weapons, but not to ban the bearing of arms in any fashion.
The Reconstruction Era, Texas puppet Congress ratified the fourteenth amendment on February 18, 1870, and Congress determined that the new Texas Constitution was consistent with the fourteenth amendment. An act of March 30, 1870, readmitted Texas to the Union.
The far more draconian statute was passed on April 12, 1871, entitled "An Act to regulate the keeping and bearing of deadly weapons." For the first time, Texas prohibited the bearing of all arms other than rifles and shotguns at any place off of one's premises.
The constitution of the United States provides that "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." This provision is found among the amendments; and, though most of the amendments are restrictions on the general government alone, not on the states, this one seems to be of a nature to bind both the state and national legislatures, and doubtless it does.
In State v. Duke, the Texas Supreme Court in an opinion by justice Gould, repudiated the English holding and concluded that the federal second amendment did not limit state action, but that the arms protected by the state guarantee were not restricted to militia arms. The decision reflects a Democratic rejection of federal interference, with increased tolerance for the kinds of arms recognized as protected under state law. Duke's conclusion that the second amendment and other federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States but not the individual states was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents. Ignoring the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of the privileges and immunities of citizens in its post-Reconstruction opinions. Of course, Duke did not consider whether the second amendment applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment.
The court proceeded to cite cases holding a sword cane, a pistol, and a bowie knife to be constitutionally protected arms.
Reorganization of the southern states:
In September of 1875 delegates assembled in Austin to formulate a new constitution after voting out the Carpetbaggers.
The law as it is today....
The Bill of Rights Committee, chaired by W.L. Crawford, reported an arms guarantee which would become Article I, Section 23 of the constitution of 1876: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
So, Now we have to ask the state for the privilege to carry a pistol.
Not what was intended that it be one or the other, open carry v. concealed carry.
So, you see shall not be infringed, has been infringed by the state.
Making the US 2nd amendment, not apply to the states.
No, I shut down your argument that was based on lies you have been fed and truly believed.
You tried your best to make the word CONGRESS as broad as you could as a catch all.
The altering of the 2nd amendment in my state....
In 1866 The Texas Constitutional Convention which met at Austin in March-April of 1866 reenacted the arms provision of 1845 verbatim: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State."
Pretty straight forward and in line with the US Constitution. Worded differently, by in line. Why have it if the US Constitution was the law of the land?
Then came the Reconstruction/Reconstitution Period, when the Federal government placed a puppet government and replaced governor.
A key issue was whether the freed slaves would be entitled to all of the rights of citizenship, at a time when the federal fourteenth amendment was working its way through Congress. Republicans held that blacks were already entitled to all rights of citizenship, including an individual right under the second amendment to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The fourteenth amendment was promoted by Republicans to end any dispute about the matter.
Texas constitutional convention of 1866 at Austin, was most progressive and tolerant of freedman's rights of all southern states. The black man could be armed.
The Texas legislature considered and rejected adoption of the fourteenth amendment in October 1866.
The militia laws in Texas at that time, according to a congressman, "authorize anybody and everybody ... to organize a militia hostile to the Government.
Texas rejected the fourteenth amendment because it was perceived as protecting from state infringement privileges such as bearing arms and associating into militia companies.
On November 6, 1866, the Texas legislature passed its first gun control measure, which was also the closest Texas came to adopting a black code provision to disarm freedmen. The act declared that "it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to carry fire-arms on the enclosed premises or plantation of any citizen, without the consent of the owner or proprietor,"
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OVER THROWS TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
In the period of fall 1866 through summer 1867, carpetbaggers descended upon the South. Following orders from Washington, D.C., General Phil Sheridan deposed Texas governor Throckmorton and installed E. M. Pease. Sheridan, according to a partisan account, "under the inspiration of an incendiary press and the Northern Union Leagues, was permitting the Texas negroes to run amuck with guns and knives." In the wake of this military autocracy, a constitutional convention was called.
With the Puppet Government in place, the convention which met at Austin between June and December 1868 was called pursuant to reconstruction acts of Congress requiring Southern states to ratify the fourteenth amendment and to adopt new constitutions consistent with that amendment. The convention proceedings reflected the Republican view that the fourteenth amendment would protect the right of all, including freedmen, to keep and bear arms.
Joint Resolution No. 13, p. 166--The refusal to ratify the fourteenth proposed amendment to the constitution of the United States. As the first section of this amendment guarantees freedmen their civil rights as citizens of the United States and of the States in which they reside, the rejection of the amendment ... is subject to the further objection of being a rejection of a condition precedent since imposed by the military reconstruction act.
WHEREAS, The custom of carrying concealed weapons is openly indulged by spectators and others who visit this Convention, in the lobbies and elsewhere; therefore be it:
Resolved:, That the Convention do order that no person shall hereafter be allowed in this hall, who carries belted on his person, revolvers or other deadly weapons.(Clearly a violation of the US 2nd amendment)
The inhibitions of power enunciated in articles from one to eight inclusive, and thirteen, of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, deny to the States, as well as to the General Government, the exercise of the powers therein reserved to the people, and shall never be exercised by the government of this State.
Morgan C. Hamilton, the committee chairman, explained this provision as follows:
It will be observed that section 3 embodies the substance of ten of the sections in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of 1845, it being the opinion of your Committee that the inhibitions enumerated in the said ten sections are fully covered by the nine articles mentioned as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, thus dispensing with a long string of sections which are deemed useless.
The committee's report is highly significant in several respects. First, it reaffirms the understanding that the federal second amendment protected individual rights, for it "embodies the substance" of the guarantee in the 1845 Texas Constitution that "every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State."
Secondly, the report clearly recognizes that the fourteenth amendment, which the proposed state bill of rights was precisely fashioned to emulate, made "articles from one to eight inclusive ... of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States" applicable to the states.
Thirdly, failure to adopt the proposed new bill of rights signified no rejection of its principles because the 1845 provisions guaranteed the same protection as the federal Bill of Rights.
Instead of adopting the committee's version, the convention adopted a modified version of the old Texas Bill of Rights. A clause was added to the arms guarantee so that it stated: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe."
Under the new version, "person" replaced "citizen"--an expansion of the protected class which would include blacks in the event any lingering doubts existed about their citizenship. The granting of legislative power to regulate the bearing of arms meant that the right was no longer "absolute," but still its exercise could not be prohibited. The intent was to authorize the legislature to ban carrying concealed weapons, but not to ban the bearing of arms in any fashion.
The Reconstruction Era, Texas puppet Congress ratified the fourteenth amendment on February 18, 1870, and Congress determined that the new Texas Constitution was consistent with the fourteenth amendment. An act of March 30, 1870, readmitted Texas to the Union.
The far more draconian statute was passed on April 12, 1871, entitled "An Act to regulate the keeping and bearing of deadly weapons." For the first time, Texas prohibited the bearing of all arms other than rifles and shotguns at any place off of one's premises.
The constitution of the United States provides that "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." This provision is found among the amendments; and, though most of the amendments are restrictions on the general government alone, not on the states, this one seems to be of a nature to bind both the state and national legislatures, and doubtless it does.
In State v. Duke, the Texas Supreme Court in an opinion by justice Gould, repudiated the English holding and concluded that the federal second amendment did not limit state action, but that the arms protected by the state guarantee were not restricted to militia arms. The decision reflects a Democratic rejection of federal interference, with increased tolerance for the kinds of arms recognized as protected under state law. Duke's conclusion that the second amendment and other federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States but not the individual states was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents. Ignoring the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of the privileges and immunities of citizens in its post-Reconstruction opinions. Of course, Duke did not consider whether the second amendment applied to the states through the fourteenth amendment.
The court proceeded to cite cases holding a sword cane, a pistol, and a bowie knife to be constitutionally protected arms.
Reorganization of the southern states:
In September of 1875 delegates assembled in Austin to formulate a new constitution after voting out the Carpetbaggers.
The law as it is today....
The Bill of Rights Committee, chaired by W.L. Crawford, reported an arms guarantee which would become Article I, Section 23 of the constitution of 1876: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power by law to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
So, Now we have to ask the state for the privilege to carry a pistol.
Not what was intended that it be one or the other, open carry v. concealed carry.
So, you see shall not be infringed, has been infringed by the state.
Making the US 2nd amendment, not apply to the states.
You should bring this to your representative in Texas and tell them you are outrage with their liberal control they have on the people of Texas. Who knew Texas was so progressive.
It also sounds like Texas had to honor the laws of the federal government.
You should bring this to your representative in Texas and tell them you are outrage with their liberal control they have on the people of Texas. Who knew Texas was so progressive.
It also sounds like Texas had to honor the laws of the federal government.
What makes you think I haven't?
The 1934 federal firearms act, too.
So, back on topic.
Kennesaw GA, is not part of the 1st amendment. They are not Congress.
In State v. Duke, the Texas Supreme Court in an opinion by justice Gould, repudiated the English holding and concluded that the federal second amendment did not limit state action, but that the arms protected by the state guarantee were not restricted to militia arms. The decision reflects a Democratic rejection of federal interference, with increased tolerance for the kinds of arms recognized as protected under state law. Duke's conclusion that the second amendment and other federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States but not the individual states was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents. Ignoring the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of the privileges and immunities of citizens in its post-Reconstruction opinions.
What makes you think I haven't?
The 1934 federal firearms act, too.
So, back on topic.
Kennesaw GA, is not part of the 1st amendment. They are not Congress.
In State v. Duke, the Texas Supreme Court in an opinion by justice Gould, repudiated the English holding and concluded that the federal second amendment did not limit state action, but that the arms protected by the state guarantee were not restricted to militia arms. The decision reflects a Democratic rejection of federal interference, with increased tolerance for the kinds of arms recognized as protected under state law. Duke's conclusion that the second amendment and other federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States but not the individual states was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents. Ignoring the intent of the framers of the fourteenth amendment to incorporate the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court took a narrow view of the privileges and immunities of citizens in its post-Reconstruction opinions.
Have you been protesting this issue you have in Austin? A town in the US still has to obey the law of the country which includes the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. amendments.
Have you been protesting this issue you have in Austin? A town in the US still has to obey the law of the country which includes the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. amendments.
Other then running for office myself, I have made my point clear to those elected to represent my best interest.
Don't you do that, or do you sit and take it?
I thought everyone did it, as their right to representation.
You & I have already had this conversation.
Back on topic, Kennesaw GA. is not CONGRESS.
State v. DUKE: The Federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States, but not the individual states, was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents.
Other then running for office myself, I have made my point clear to those elected to represent my best interest.
Don't you do that, or do you sit and take it?
I thought everyone did it, as their right to representation.
You & I have already had this conversation.
Back on topic, Kennesaw GA. is not CONGRESS.
State v. DUKE: The Federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States, but not the individual states, was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents.
Kennesaw is a town within this country and has to obey the laws of Congress. You disagreeing with me doesn't change that fact.
Kennesaw is a town within this country and has to obey the laws of Congress. You disagreeing with me doesn't change that fact.
But in this case, CONGRESS made no law. They cannot.
GA, has their own Constitution that deals with it.
State V. Duke : The Federal Bill of Rights provisions limited the United States, but not the individual states, was based on the United States Supreme Court's restrictive views in The Slaughterhouse Cases and similar precedents.
Please explain why this will turn out differently than the objections to the Murfreesboro Mosque, at least they had reasons why they didn't like the mosque other than we don't like Islam.
Same arguments that Islam is not a religion and only Christians decide what constitutes a religion.
Quote:
But a thriving anti-Muslim movement in Tennessee fueled the fight. Mosque foes asserted that the First Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom did not apply to the mosque. In court, Joe Brandon Jr., a lawyer for mosque foes, said Islam is not a religion, and he argued that the mosque was a threat to the community.
Initially, a local judge ruled for the mosque foes and ordered a halt to mosque construction. But a federal court quickly overruled that decision, paving the way for the mosque to open in 2012. A state appeals court also later overturned the lower court decision.
Kennesaw is a town within this country and has to obey the laws of Congress. You disagreeing with me doesn't change that fact.
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 - 10th Amendment
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
