Comments on: What’s At Stake In The Chicago Gun-Ban Case, McDonald v. Chicago

By: David Fraley

David Fraley — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 09:41:50 +0000

Mayor Daley of Chicago sites horror stories of people who were hurt by guns in his town as a reason to ban guns, but fails to point out that this happened under his watch and his austere rules, witch failed to protect them. Perhaps some of them might not have been victims if they were not perceived as unarmed and helpless. The shooters might have thought better of it if and held there fire. Wolves attack sheep not bears.

By: Back To The Slaughterhouse? « Modern Reactionary

Back To The Slaughterhouse? « Modern Reactionary — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 23:31:01 +0000

[...] pint, even if Wiki is often in error. For more detailed discussions of the issues at hand, check here and here. Share this [...]

By: Paladin

Paladin — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:22:53 +0000

There were no powers reserved to Cities, Counties etc. Only to the States and the people. So, NO, the Cities have no powers pursuant to the Constitution. And, since the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land”, it restricts ALL LEVELS of government regardless of what our corrupt courts and lawmakers have perpetrated. We need SERIOUS court/justice reforms and the repealing of 10′s of thousands of BS laws in this country while we’re “re-founding” it!

By: JimInMT

JimInMT — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:47:11 +0000

and we are endowed with “UNalienable” rights, not “inalienable”. There is, I am told, a HUGE difference in the meanings of those two words. I posit that we should all consider a ‘root’ within: “lien”. Ponder what that is and you will see why “unalienable” was chosen [I do not know if the other word was even in use at the time]. As in: “no one may levy or enforce a lien against” rights.

By: JimInMT

JimInMT — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:44:10 +0000

bandofotters asked: “5.…but Chicago is not a state! Can a city suppress inalianable rights over and above those suppressions imposed by a state?” A better question might have been, where in the US Constitution are states prohibited from passing laws that conflict with the ENTIRE US Constitution? The so-called “supremacy clause” is where. So questions about sub-units of states are irrelevant and moot!

By: JimInMT

JimInMT — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 22:14:31 +0000

When the Framers wrote and published the Constitution, and then the 13 states ratified, the Bill of Rights was part and parcel of that document. There can be NO doubt that the BOR was and always has been an integral part of the US Constitution, with its restrictions on both Congress and the States. Those restrictions included the protection of enumerated rights, above all others. The Ninth and Tenth amendments were reminders that ALL the PEOPLE owned ALL rights enumerated, and the Federal and State governments could NOT infringe or abridge those enumerated rights, or, as protected by the Ninth Amendment, any others not enumerated. Indeed, each state ALREADY protected arms of individuals, for the security of their individual states and themselves. How can it be that we have such “luminaries” in control in Washington who have not understood what limitations are? Easy. They grew up being taught by existentialists and undisciplined teachers who never learned plain English nor studied OUR history.

By: bandofotters

bandofotters — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 18:23:20 +0000

…but Chicago is not a state! Can a city suppress inalianable rights over and above those suppressions imposed by a state?

By: bill

bill — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 17:56:46 +0000

Alan Korwin I disagree with the historic understanding that the Bill of Rights only applied to the Federal Government.

If you read William Rawle book “View of the Constitution” then you will find out that the 1st amendment actually only applied to the Federal Government but that the rest of the amendments (2-10) applied to the States as well.

The first amendment was a political compromise because some of the States had religious qualification requirements for office holders. So to get the States to ratify the Constitution they allowed the States to maintain their State churches and their religious qualification requirements.

The first amendment therefore removed the religious qualification for federal office holders but allowed the States to maintain theirs.

The importance of Rawle book is that it was used as a text book at places like Harvard, Dartmouth, West Point and others to teach the future leaders of our nation about the Constitution.

Plus Rawle was a good friend of Washington, Madison and Hamilton and others and was going to be our first attorney General but declined the appointment

By: Paladin

Paladin — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 15:58:29 +0000

While I don’t disagree that the Courts have illegitimately ruled that the States are not bound by the Constitution’s restrictions. I’d argue that it was judicial activism, statism and Legal Quackery that they did so.

I do, however, disagree that the Constitution was not intended to restrict the States initially.

I read in Article IV, Section 2:

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

I read Article VI, beginning with the second paragraph:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; …”

And to me it clearly “incorporates” the US Constitution against the states. If “all executive and judicial officers, BOTH OF THE U.S. AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES,…” are “bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitition; …” and the Constitution is “the supreme law of the land.” then ….?????

Additionally, if the States aren’t bound by the Constitution, why must they “ratify” it.

The only way it could be reasonably argued – without a bunch of legal QUACKERY – that it only applies to the Federal Government is if “the land” is only the District of Columbia.

Just sayin’

By: Free In Idaho! » Blog Archive » Chicago And The 2nd

Free In Idaho! » Blog Archive » Chicago And The 2nd — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:33:45 +0000

[...] Supreme Court handling of the Chicago Second Amendment (and Fourteenth Amendment) case. This is Alan Korwin over on the AmmoLand site. Is Chicago obligated, under the 14th Amendment, to honor and respect your [...]

By: Anthony C.

Anthony C. — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 23:54:40 +0000

I for one have no problem with P&I method. As a libertarian I feel the more freedoms the better. Although Polygamy sounds a little scary, one wife is enough. (-: