Thread: If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment...

Originally Posted by joazinha

CRIMINALS will ALWAYS get guns, NO matter WHAT. The ONLY recourse is for LAW-abiding CITIZENS to carry weapons!

AMEN.

It will be a cold day in hell before i ever surrender my fire arms to anyone, that includes the clowns in DC, like Charlton Heston said" from my cold dead hands" and i won't be alone.....

Just like in Katrina; the government wants our guns taken away

Regarding the Second Amendment, keep in mind the amendment in question is part of our first ten amendments to our Constitution, otherwise referred to as our federal Bill of Rights. And what were the intentions and beliefs for adopting our federal Bill of Rights? I ask this question because abiding be the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted is to abide by our constitutional system’s most fundamental rule:

Intent of constitution
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.

Expounding upon our Constitution is not a matter of “interpretationâ€

We live in the country and the other day we found a injured raccoon in our yard. We called the animal control and were told that they do not respond to injured raccoons. I asked them what we were supposed to do and they said they didn't know.

OK, we didn't think this raccoon was rabbid but, there was no guarantee. All we knew was this raccoon was suffering and needed to be put out of it's misery. The quickest and easiest way was to shoot it, which is what we did.

My question is what if the raccoon had been rabbid and we weren't allowed to own a gun?

It's pretty evident what the Founding Fathers intended. Back then, they didn't have grocery stores and you hunted for your food like Congressman David Crocket. Pretty stupid to think the intent was only to arm a militia. Citizens have the right to bear private arms. However, for the greater good there are some places that are not acceptable locations to carry firearms. For instance, shcools and into private or public facilities like bars, housing for the mentally ill, into prisons ...

There has to be some limits, otherwise individuals will use bad judgement that could be very costly to society. The only way to deter bad judgement is with law and order.

Dixie

BTW, I would say the law being questioned in the SC is un-constitutional for a reason which has nothing to do with guns.

The gun law in question was not enacted by Congress. Under our Constitution Congress, and only Congress, has been granted power:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--

Congress has un-constitutionally delegated its power to legislate in all Cases whatsoever within the district of Columbia to the Council of the District of Columbia, created by Congress under the Home Rule Act of 1973. But the Council of the District of Columbia has not been elected by the people of the United States respectively as commanded by our Constitution, and thus, the gun law in question has not been enacted by agents authorized to legislate under our Constitution. Those authorized to legislate in the District of Columbia are explicitly to be elected by the people of the united States respectively.



JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story