Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A ‘Well Regulated Militia’ the Basis of Private Gun Ownership
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ConstitutionCowboy" data-source="post: 3079470" data-attributes="member: 745"><p>SCOTUS cannot alter the meaning of the Second Amendment. Precedent or not, the fact is that the Second Amendment so states that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Court read and obeyed the Second Amendment in Cruikshank and Heller properly.</p><p></p><p>As far as the Commerce Clause goes, government cannot touch the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with it. All the "gun" laws passed under the false guise that the government has power to do so under the Commerce Clause goes against the Second Amendment - which was ratified after the Commerce Clause was enacted with the original Constitution's acceptance. The Second Amendment removed any and all power the government had regarding commerce in arms or anything else regarding the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. It is no different than the Federal Government passing a liquor prohibiting law under the guise it has power to do so under the Eighteenth Amendment. As we all know, the Eighteenth Amendment, though it is still in the U S Constitution, any power it gave to the Federal Government to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors was stripped away by the Twenty-first Amendment. So it is with the Second Amendment over the Commerce Clause.</p><p></p><p>Congress and the Court needs to take a refresher on the Second Amendment, read it, and obey it by taking the necessary steps to correct the errors in the law and adjudication. All in Congress and on the Court are just as culpable as those who passed the infringing law and support that law by not removing the bogus law and correcting the adjudication based upon the bogus law.</p><p></p><p>Woody</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ConstitutionCowboy, post: 3079470, member: 745"] SCOTUS cannot alter the meaning of the Second Amendment. Precedent or not, the fact is that the Second Amendment so states that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Court read and obeyed the Second Amendment in Cruikshank and Heller properly. As far as the Commerce Clause goes, government cannot touch the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with it. All the "gun" laws passed under the false guise that the government has power to do so under the Commerce Clause goes against the Second Amendment - which was ratified after the Commerce Clause was enacted with the original Constitution's acceptance. The Second Amendment removed any and all power the government had regarding commerce in arms or anything else regarding the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. It is no different than the Federal Government passing a liquor prohibiting law under the guise it has power to do so under the Eighteenth Amendment. As we all know, the Eighteenth Amendment, though it is still in the U S Constitution, any power it gave to the Federal Government to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors was stripped away by the Twenty-first Amendment. So it is with the Second Amendment over the Commerce Clause. Congress and the Court needs to take a refresher on the Second Amendment, read it, and obey it by taking the necessary steps to correct the errors in the law and adjudication. All in Congress and on the Court are just as culpable as those who passed the infringing law and support that law by not removing the bogus law and correcting the adjudication based upon the bogus law. Woody [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
A ‘Well Regulated Militia’ the Basis of Private Gun Ownership
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom