California's New CC Ruling

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by Robin Lewis

I read the original Bill of Rights and I easily see a common thread in all of them, which I believe Russell tried to shine a light on when he listed them. That common thread is that each, and everyone of these amendments, is directed at the individual and are rights reserved for them alone. Not rights reserved for a Militia or church or town or army or .... whatever, just for the individual alone,.... the people.

It seems unreasonable to argue that the second amendment alone is not dedicated to the rights of the individual.

So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?

[Bindlestiff]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So you don't believe constitutional rights should be extended to entities (religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations)?

Yep, I do. These rights are extended to all the "people" that make up the religious institutions, non-profit entities, schools or corporations thereby the organizations have these same rights. Take away the people and they lose these rights.

[Dean Romig]

Only insofar as the constitution specifically includes them... IMHO

They have no right to pretend the constitution protects them by attempting to identify themselves as individuals and claim protection under the Bill of Rights.

And I agree that without the "people" these entities are not protected.





.

[Kensal Rise]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

...without the "people" these entities are not protected.

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[Bruce Day]

Regarding individual gun rights and the Second Amendment,

I think it does too, but it is not as clear a statement as some would believe or act like they believe and you have to go beyond the words of the amendment to reach that conclusion. Scalia thought so too and he wrote the landmark and narrow majority Heller decision with that in mind. He was perhaps the best friend gun owners could have. With him gone and more people turning against gun owners because of wacko shootings we lose public goodwill. Some people are willing to take all gun owners down with them because they want their butt ugly Bushmasters, ARs, AKs and the like.

Because of these military style weapons the public turns against us and may fail to distinguish one gun from another. The AK and AR crowd tells us we must stand together, no wonder , they need the support now for the problems these weapons have created.

[Setter Man]

Think Heller was the right decision but I disagree with Citizens United. Unless corporations can be held to the same responsibilities as an individual they should not enjoy the same protections.

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

No assault rifle. Maybe God says it is my right to have a shotgun. I'll take a Parker , surely that is in the Bible .

Or if not that , how about at least a Marlin bolt action shotgun. Old or New Testament ?

Good old David of David and Goliath fame was not in the military and not a law enforcement officer, he was a boy, a boy who had learned to use a rock and a sling (presumably with God's help) against bears and lions before he took down Goliath. David, an underage youth, possessed the lethal weaponry of the day for non-military use, with non-military training. The weapons used by David were not toy sling shots if they could kill large animals and Goliath. So the Bible speaks of God's people packing heat back in the day and God helped their aim be true.

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

"Militia" is well defined, see below. You fellows over 45 are not in the militia. I am by virtue of being subject to recall by order of the President.

If you are recalled to active duty with the U.S. Military you are not part of the "militia" ( a bit surprising to me that you would not know that). The standing active duty military is not the militia. The National Guard , which didn't exist until 1903, created by the Dick Act is not the militia.

This was addressed and clarified in 1982 by the Senate's Judiciary Committee, Sub-committee on the Constitution, in Senate Document 2807:

"That the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to 'raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).

Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States."

The bottom line all the arms, the munitions, the armament and equipment of both the Active Duty Military and National Guard is owned and controlled by the federal government, not by "the people" as stipulated in the last phrase of the Second Amendment.

With regard to a standing military and the 2nd Amendment, here's the voice of a more obscure founding father.

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, , August 17, 1789

[Bindlestiff]

Originally Posted by Pete Lester

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . .Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, VP of the United States 1813-1814, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, , August 17, 1789

Amazing what one can learn at this web site!

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

Ahem... Quite right, Dean.

But perhaps certain of us might do well to recall the preamble to The US Constitution. Please pay particular attention to the FIRST THREE WORDS... :

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist, in U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), writing the majority opinion - wrote that the term "the people" has the same meaning in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All those five amendments in the Bill of Rights use the term "the people" to guarantee a right for individual citizens, not just some collective right of the state as a whole.


In his opinion there is no reason to believe that the Second Amendment uses the term "the people" differently from the other four amendments.

honestly - to think these word smiths used the term "PEOPLE" in WE THE PEOPLE and 4 other amendments but meant something completely different in just the second amendment stretches credibility even for an activist judge