Quote:
Originally Posted by terrence81
Haven't read all the responses but actually brought this up in a thread in DC. In the District of Columbia it is illegal to carry a gun into the city if you are not a resident. Which just doesn't make sense to me. Perfectly legal in VA becomes a felony in DC. That's ridiculous. So yeah it should be the same across the board. I know my republican friends are all about state rights but with this issue I think nationalizing such a law would be beneficial to everyone.
|
The issue is clear. There is already a "national" law. It's called the United States Constitution. By being a a member of the United States of America, you .. the "state" are agreeing to be bound by the laws of the land as established under that constitution, and that constitution extends protection of rights to all citizens regardless of the "state" to which they reside.
From freedom of speech, to the right of due process, to keeping and bearing arms are constitutionally protected rights that neither the federal government nor the several states can deny the citizenry. They are not privileges, they are rights.
Part of the powers and responsibilities allowed the federal are to enforce the laws established by the constitution and other laws passed by the federal legislature that are constitutionally compliant. At the same time, the Federal legislature cannot pass or enforce any law that oversteps it's jurisdiction as defined by the separation of powers. The Federal Government can legally exercise only those powers granted it by the constitution, while those powers not specifically granted to the Federal Government are reserved to the people and the several states.
In the case of guns and the 2nd amendment, both the Federal Government and State Governments are regularly violating the constitution. Any law passed by either the FED or State that infringes on the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional and holds no force in law.
The fact that the most recent rulings of the Supreme Court is in direct contradiction to long standing precedent decisions of previous courts only illuminates the criminality of the current courts on this matter, among many others.
The modern day argument being supported by the Supreme Court holds that the 2nd amendment does not apply to individuals, calling upon their self serving and totally fraudulent interpretation of the language:
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.
The bold, "well regulated militia" being the key to their argument that the amendment applies to an organized militia (read: National Guard) is as phony as a 3 dollar bill.
At the time of the writing of this amendment, there was no National Guard, nor was there an "Organized" Militia. The Militia, in those days were common citizens who would form a "militia" in the event of need to defend. The "Regulated" portion of the language means to be "prepared", i.e. guns in good working order with adequate ammunition. It was a duty as much as a right in those days for men to come to the defense of their community.
Any cursory review of the writings and debates among the framers of the constitution clearly defines their intent that the operative of the language is "....the right of the
People to Keep and Bear arms shall not be infringed" is the literal interpretation, while the portion "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." portion is the preamble.
One of the best quotes that one can consider came from Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
The author of the 2nd amendment, James Madison said "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
There are dozens of similar comments from the founding fathers that clearly define the intent of the 2nd amendment to be the guarantee of the right for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms ... primarily for the purpose of defending against "Government" Tyranny.
The entire constitution is designed to keep the Federal Government from acquiring tyrannical powers, while also ensuring that the people's rights are not denied by any state.
The Founding Fathers knew all too well the tyranny of the British Crown that necessitated the declaration of independence, the revolutionary war, and the establishment of our Constitutional Republic, the drafting of the constitution and the bill of rights.
Any interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that denies it's application to the individual citizens is a blatant bastardization of the language and contrary to the intent by the authors.
Or, more bluntly. it is double talk by a band of criminals and traitors who wish to deprive the citizenry of their ability to defend themselves against tyranny.
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.
