Re: The People of Columbus, OH Fight To Enact Sensible Gun Laws

On Oct 1, 7:48 pm, Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfre...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


If your state makes use of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, yes.
 You don't have any right to have guns for any purpose under the
Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and you never will..

It doesn't matter if my state uses the 9th or 10th amendments
because they are both restrictions on the powers of the Federal
government.

Your state uses the Ninth & Tenth Amendments to grant your gun
rights, so if your gun rights matter you should be grateful for the
9th & 10th Amendments.

States don't grant rights you idiot.

Then prove it, if it's really true.

If you personally can't support anything you say, try another newsgroup
geared to less serious teabagger issues.

Q. Does not the Constitution give us our rights and liberties?
A. No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their
rights and liberties before they made the Constitution.

Well then

Well then.

[chuckle] Looks like you're proven wrong.

Again.

, if you had any kind of natural right to have a gun
unconnected to any militia service, just for your individual self-
defense, before ratification of the US Constitution, why haven't you
posted it?

I've only had rights since my Creator gave them to me. I wasn't around
before the Constitution.

Thanks for admitting you're proven wrong once again. Let's look at it
ONE MORE TIME!!!!!!!

Q. Does not the Constitution give us our rights and liberties?

I said "grant", not "give",

grant - 10 of 97 thesaurus results
Main Entry:     grant
Part of Speech: noun
Definition:     allowance, gift, authorize, allow

You know, you just make yourself look even MORE stupid when you try to
cover your tracks like this, Lee.

Thesaurus.com, eh Slobbert?

This is my source:

[begin excerpt]

grant, v.

5. a. To bestow or confer (a possession, right, etc.) by a formal act.
Said of a sovereign or supreme authority, a court of justice, a
representative assembly, etc. Also, in Law, to transfer (property)
from oneself to another person, especially by deed.

- Oxford English Dictionary


right.

When we speak of a person having a right, we must

necessarily refer to a civil right as distinguished from the

elemental idea of rights absolute. We must have in mind a

right given and protected by law, and a person's enjoyment

thereof is regulated entirely by the law which creates it.

If we were to consider these rights as absolute, nothing but

chaos could result. See Nickell v Rosenfield, 82 Cal App

369, 255 P 760.

- Ballantine's Law Dictionary

[end excerpt]

[begin selected US Supreme Court cases containing "rights granted"]

The government of the United States is one of delegated powers

alone. Its authority is defined and limited by the Constitution.

All powers not granted to it by that instrument are reserved to

the States or the people. No rights can be acquired under the

constitution or laws of the United States, except such as the

government of the United States has the authority to grant or

secure. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left under

the protection of the States.



U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

_______


BRAY v. ALEXANDRIA CLINIC, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), 316



Justice Stevens, dissenting opinion in which Justice

Blackmun joined



re: 42 USC 1985(3)



III.



"The Court bypasses the statute's history, intent, and plain

language in its misplaced reliance on prior precedent. Of

course, the Court has never before had occasion to construe

the second clause of 1985(3). The first clause, however, has

been narrowly construed in Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651

(1951), Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (1971), and

Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (1983). In the first of

these decisions, the Court held that 1985(3) did not apply

to wholly private conspiracies. 12 In Griffin, the Court

rejected that view, but limited the application of the

statute's first clause to conspiracies motivated by

discriminatory intent to deprive plaintiffs of rights

constitutionally protected against private (and not just

governmental) deprivation. Finally, Carpenters reemphasized

that the first clause of 1985(3) offers no relief from the

violation of rights protected against only state

interference. 463 U.S., at 830 -834. To date, the Court has

recognized as rights protected against private encroachment

(and, hence, by 1985(3)) only the constitutional right of

interstate travel and rights granted by the Thirteenth

Amendment."


_______


States are free to devise their own systems of review in criminal

cases. A State may decide whether to have direct appeals in such

cases, and if so under what circumstances. McKane v. Durston, 153

U.S. 684, 687 , 14 S.Ct. 913, 915. In respecting the duty laid

upon them by Mooney v. Holohan, the States have a wide choice of

remedies. A State may provide that the protection of rights

granted by the Federal Constitution be sought through the writ of

habeas corpus or coram nobis. [329 U.S. 173, 176]



Mr. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion of the Court.



CARTER v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF ILLINOIS, 329 U.S. 173 (1946)


_______


The decision we render today exalts the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment above all others. Of course any power

exercised by the Congress must be asserted in conformity

with the requirements of Due Process. Tot v. United States,

319 U.S. 463 ; United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612 ;

Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 . But the requirement of

Due Process is a limitation on powers granted, not the means

whereby rights granted by the Constitution may be wiped out

or watered down. The Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship

to the native-born, as explained in United States v. Wong

Kim Ark, supra. That right may be waived or surrendered by

the citizen. But I see no constitutional [356 U.S. 44, 84]

method by which it can be taken from him. Citizenship, like

freedom of speech, press, and religion, occupies a preferred

position in our written Constitution, because it is a grant

absolute in terms. The power of Congress to withhold it,

modify it, or cancel it does not exist. One who is native-

born may be a good citizen or a poor one. Whether his

actions be criminal or charitable, he remains a citizen for

better or for worse, except and unless he voluntarily

relinquishes that status. While Congress can prescribe

conditions for voluntary expatriation, Congress cannot turn

white to black and make any act an act of expatriation. For

then the right granted by the Fourteenth Amendment becomes

subject to regulation by the legislative branch. But that

right has no such infirmity. It is deeply rooted in history,

as United States v. Wong Kim Ark, supra, shows. And the

Fourteenth Amendment put it above and beyond legislative

control.



PEREZ v. BROWNELL, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), Mr. Justice Douglas

dissenting

[end selected US Supreme Court cases containing "rights granted"]

and I said it was the framers of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights - actual human beings - who
granted us those rights.

And...

I've already proved you wrong.

Too bad we see nothing about personal gun rights in anything they
said, eh Blobbo?

Try reading the 2A some day

When Heller & MacDonald's are overruled by subsequent decision, maybe
then you'll get around to reading them yourself, eh Bobby?

A. No, it does not, it only guarantees them. The people had all their
rights and liberties before they made the Constitution.

Oh yeah, one old definition of "grant" is "OF. granter, graanter,
greanter, alteration of creanter GUARANTEE, ASSURE". - Oxford
Dictionary of English Etymology, page 410. C.T. Onions, ed.

So a synonym of "grant" is the word "guarantee", actually.

So I win again and you lose again.

Show us the pre-existing expressly individual gun rights for self-
defense

I don't have to.

Then you lose as always...

POINT PROVEN!

--


NRACLAPTRAP
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DC v Heller: Amicus Brief of the Real Linguists, Part I
    ... > And, reading on, you still haven't told me just how the 4th Amendment ... But, as Rehnquist points out, the rights of the 4th Amen extend ONLY to THE PEOPLE! ... How would an 80-year-old black woman from Haiti having an "individual right" to "own and carry guns" further the security of a free state to have a well-regulated militia, when such a person would be FOUR WAYS prohibited from SERVING in the militia or VOTING for the legislature that organizes and controls it? ... OR, and this is where the BoR comes in, any rights they MAY have claimed were not PROTECTED or GUARANTEED by the Constitution! ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: 2nd Amend. case
    ... ever mentioned about abortion or reproductive rights in the constitution ... The trouble with the originalist interpretation is that you have no rights ... Well, first of all, it could only have applied to the federal government ... This applies to the pre 14th amendment days too. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Heller.
    ... Also shown below, some scholars mistakenly assume that when the Constitution refers to "the people," a collective right or entity is referenced. ... The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights begins: ... "The people" in the Fourth Amendment obviously refers to an individual right. ... But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • Re: Note to Phil
    ... Yes, they do, as do yours from your constitution, Magus. ... And interpreted by the Supreme Court as protecting those rights not ... The second amendment declares that it shall not be ... ones distributed from an armory or the federal government. ...
    (talk.politics.guns)
  • RKBA Always an individual right --- Madisons BOR Speech
    ... Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights ... Constitution, ... amendments as are proper for Congress to propose to the Legislatures ...
    (talk.politics.guns)