Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23)

This is a discussion on Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; That I can recall, there are only two cases wherein the Supreme Court cited to foreign laws (Texas v. Lawrence and Roper). While I agree ...

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 46

Thread: Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23)

  1. #31
    Member Array cali-da's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    54
    That I can recall, there are only two cases wherein the Supreme Court cited to foreign laws (Texas v. Lawrence and Roper). While I agree that it is inappropriate to do so, two cases does not constitute an agenda. You should also remember that the two new justices are more conservative and have already shifted the balance on the court.

    Second where is the case law that says your right to open carry is embodied in the Nineth Amendment. You want a declaration of a federal right from powers and rights that are implicitly given to the states? That doesn't make any sense. Only the federal government could potentially give a nation wide open carry because they have the jurisdiction. Your claim that it comes from the 9th amendment is simply a faulty legal argument. Going through the 9th Amendment means that the right to carry openly or not comes from the states. It seems clear that most states have created constitutionally or statutorily the right to own weapons and after going through a given process the right to carry concealed. The legal argument you offer is circular and again explains why the NRA was not interested in your case.

    Again the 9th Amendment can't give you a national right from a state power. Especially at open sea.

    How again is the Supreme Court criminally faulty? It doesn't make any sense. The Supreme Court deals with federal questions. Your own articles make clear that there has been no constitutional challenge based on the 2nd amendment to reach the Supreme Court since 1939. How is that criminal? How can you prove evil or mal intent. As a criminal prosecutor, to me, your claim of criminality is just a blatant attempt to place emotion into a weak argument. Maybe the answer is that there is no confusion at the state or circuit level to justify a Supreme Court answer. Maybe it is that most of us understand what the 2nd amendment means and you don't.

    Perhaps the reason that there is more 1st amendment clarification is because there have simply been more questions regarding the 1st than the 2nd. Perhaps the 2nd is so blatanlty clear that further clarification is unnecessary. The Constitution (by that I mean the rest of it) makes clear the the Court can choose its case load. Accusing the court for the last 50 years of being criminal doesn't mean you have a case of first impression that anyone is going to care about.

    Finally, (and I would add my last post on this particular thread), during the last 50 years with the bad case law has also come a great deal of good case law. I don't think anyone on this site would argue that allowing black children to go to the same schools as white children is bad. Providing for the equal treatment of all citizens under the 14th Amendment is also a good thing. Clarifiying criminal procedure and providing clear guildelines for police and prosecutors is a good thing. Making blatant generalizations about an enormous body of law of which I doubt you have read not only weakens your claims but makes it seem silly and a clear waste of time.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,107

    Wink

    Yeah...everything that cali-da just said...
    I was going to say all of that next but, he beat me to it.

  4. #33
    Senior Member Array madmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spring Hill, FL
    Posts
    750
    Most all of this has gotten waaaaaay over my head!

    Maybe I'm just a simpleton, but it seems quite clear to me that the wording of the 2nd Amendment indicates that the "people's right" to keep and bare arms is something that exist outside of the document, itself.

    It reads to me as if the framers were not granting that right, it was pre-existing and they included it, along with some others, to guarantee their existence in the future.

    I've also no idea where anyone gets the notion that the 2nd is any different that the 1st Amendment. Why is the first interpreted to cover all the technological and social advances that's taken place when it was written, but the 2nd often is said not to apply to today's arms or societal "improvements."

    Sorry guys, but I place the blame on both lawyers and politicians. And those of us who elect the latter.

    mm
    Political Correctness has now "evolved" into Political Cowardice.

  5. #34
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,107

    Post

    Yep, some of this is flying right over my head too.

    I'll let the Legal Eagles slug this one out.

    The argument is getting too legally intricate with many technical nuances that are making my doggone head hurt.

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Since the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, and there is no higher judicial authority, I fail to see how their declining to review or rule on a particular case can be considered criminal. What law did they break?

    Essentially this boils down to you not getting your way, and pitching a fit about it. You aren't helping RKBA issues, and you aren't making gun owners look good at all.

    Apparently you haven't read my blog in its entirety. Constitutional law and Supreme Court case law is lacking because the Supreme Court is criminally derelict in its duty to treat the Second Amendment on equal footing with the First Amndment. Evidence proving this is the Senate Document, "U.S. Constitution" with Analysis of Supreme Court Cases (U.S. Govt Printing Office, Washington DC) has 222 pages on the First Amndment and only one and a half pages for the Second Amendment.

    My case will be "a case of first impression" if the Supreme Court does not continue its criminal behavior.
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  7. #36
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    A dissenting opinion means nothing. The Constitution is NOT static between amendments. Abortion has been decided, overturned and may be overturned again on Constitutional grounds without a single amendment being adopted regarding abortion... or, IIRC anything else for that matter.

    Let me give you a hint. When the pro-gun rights, pro-personal freedom, pro-self-reliance members of this board tell you that your case is junk, you might want to listen.

    Quote Originally Posted by donhamrick

    DISSENTING OPINION IN THE DRED SCOTT V. SANFORD CASE:
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  8. #37
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Cali-Da Said:

    That I can recall, there are only two cases wherein the Supreme Court cited to foreign laws (Texas v. Lawrence and Roper). While I agree that it is inappropriate to do so, two cases does not constitute an agenda. You should also remember that the two new justices are more conservative and have already shifted the balance on the court.

    A simple Google Search:

    http://hnn.us/articles/23499.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...emailarticlepg
    http://www.fed-soc.org/Intllaw&%20AmerSov/hargensov.pdf
    http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archive...e-she-belongs/
    http://lawculture.blogs.com/lawcultu...t_just_fo.html
    http://powerlineblog.com/archives/009182.php

    Second where is the case law that says your right to open carry is embodied in the Nineth Amendment. You want a declaration of a federal right from powers and rights that are implicitly given to the states? That doesn't make any sense. Only the federal government could potentially give a nation wide open carry because they have the jurisdiction. Your claim that it comes from the 9th amendment is simply a faulty legal argument. Going through the 9th Amendment means that the right to carry openly or not comes from the states. It seems clear that most states have created constitutionally or statutorily the right to own weapons and after going through a given process the right to carry concealed. The legal argument you offer is circular and again explains why the NRA was not interested in your case.

    Our rights DO NOT COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOR THE STATES. They come from God. Our rights pre-existed the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution merely guarantees that the U.S. Government will not infringement upon our rights, that they are guaranteed that we can exercises our rights (and subsequent duties to protect those rights) from government trespass. The Bill of Rights are supposed to apply to the States as well but the Supreme Court has criminally seen fit to pick and chose which ones apply to the States. This is the Incorporation Doctrine.

    Again the 9th Amendment can't give you a national right from a state power. Especially at open sea.

    REPEAT: The Ninth Amendment DOES NOT GIVE RIGHTS! IT GUARANTEES OUR UNENUMERATED RIGHTS WILL NOT BE DISPARAGED.

    How again is the Supreme Court criminally faulty? It doesn't make any sense. The Supreme Court deals with federal questions. Your own articles make clear that there has been no constitutional challenge based on the 2nd amendment to reach the Supreme Court since 1939. How is that criminal? How can you prove evil or mal intent. As a criminal prosecutor, to me, your claim of criminality is just a blatant attempt to place emotion into a weak argument. Maybe the answer is that there is no confusion at the state or circuit level to justify a Supreme Court answer. Maybe it is that most of us understand what the 2nd amendment means and you don't.

    There have been countless constitutional challenges rising up through the Circuits. But the Supreme Courts denies all of them. That in itself is an Article III violation for every denial of a Second Amendment case.

    Perhaps the reason that there is more 1st amendment clarification is because there have simply been more questions regarding the 1st than the 2nd.
    Bullcrap.

    Perhaps the 2nd is so blatanlty clear that further clarification is unnecessary. The Constitution (by that I mean the rest of it) makes clear the the Court can choose its case load. Accusing the court for the last 50 years of being criminal doesn't mean you have a case of first impression that anyone is going to care about.

    The wording of the Second Amendment may itself be problematic.

    EMAIL I SENT TO THE AUTHOR JB Campbell, "Second Amendment 'Rights' Dead":

    ----------------------------------------------

    http://www.rense.com/general71/seclond.htm

    You wrote:

    The clause, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." is meaningless and has always been meaningless, as Patrick Henry pointed out repeatedly after reading this deceptive Amendment, along with the equally deceptive clauses in Article One regarding the arming and leadership of the militia.

    Can you provide the documentation for the Patrick Henry reference? I can use it in my Second Amendment case in the federal courts.

    Don Hamrick
    American Common Defence Review


    --------------------------------------------------
    THE REPLY FROM THE JB CAMPBELL:
    --------------------------------------------------

    The best source for Henry's opposition to the wording of the 2nd Amendment and to the militia clauses of Article 1, Section 8 are found in Patrick Henry, Patriot & Statesman, by Noreen Campbell Dickson. Published by Devin-Adair around 1970. I've heard D-A, which is not the same great house anymore, might be reprinting it, but you can probably find it online. It is really priceless.

    Henry was totally opposed to the Constitution itself, as you will find in that book. The problem was that it was crafted by Freemasons and was based on Masonic lodge rules of procedure, secretly instead of modifying the Articles of Confederation as they were supposed to do. Henry called it a deception and a design for empire.

    The amendment should simply have read, The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The well-regulated militia part was a limiter, which has been used ever since to disarm us because we or our arms didn't somehow fit with some judge's view of "the militia." We have the natural right to have guns for any purpose or for no purpose at all. That is, we have the natural right to defend ourselves, anytime, anywhere.

    I decided to jam "the militia" up the government's ass in 1989 with my book, The New American Man - A Call to Arms. It started the modern miitia movement that year which lasted until the government responded with its massacre of federal employees and children at Oklahoma City in 1995. In the book I listed and summarized all the federal court decisions regarding the 2nd Amendment in the US Code Annotated, from 1840 to 1980. Not a one went our way. So obviously it is a waste of time to seek satisfaction in the courts. It's way too late for that. Besides, almost all the judges are themselves Freemasons, along with the attorneys and cops, so - where are we? Nowhere.

    But the Henry book shows that at least one guy was on guard when the Constitution was being rammed down our throats in secret. He and a couple of other guys demanded a Bill of Rights to protect us from the Constitution, which the Masonic federalists claimed wasn't necessary. Can you imagine where we'd be now with just the first seven articles? Where is the check and balance on the Supreme Court? You can see how these ******** do business with the Reconstruction amendments, which weren't even ratified by the southern states. The Fourteenth Amendment made us all slaves, and forbade questioning the public debt! The Sixteenth was based on fraud and the Seventeenth abolished their original form of government, with the election of Senators. The states were no longer represented in the contract. The Eighteenth was madness, and led to the creation of organized crime. As I said, the rule of law is no more - we are under the rule of the gun.

    JBC


    --------------------------------------------------

    Finally, (and I would add my last post on this particular thread), during the last 50 years with the bad case law has also come a great deal of good case law. I don't think anyone on this site would argue that allowing black children to go to the same schools as white children is bad. Providing for the equal treatment of all citizens under the 14th Amendment is also a good thing. Clarifiying criminal procedure and providing clear guildelines for police and prosecutors is a good thing. Making blatant generalizations about an enormous body of law of which I doubt you have read not only weakens your claims but makes it seem silly and a clear waste of time.


    Okay, try this out for size. Civil Rights law! Segregation is bad thing. So, why segregate law-abiding gun owners from society with "Gun Free Zones"? Why discriminate against gun owners by coercing them into concealed carry just to appease the timid and faint of heart who are terrified by the sight of a gun? This is the same thing as the racist policy "separate but equal." Open Carry is a civil right.

  9. #38
    Lead Moderator
    Array rstickle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Laurel, MD
    Posts
    21,663
    Quote Originally Posted by donhamrick
    Okay, try this out for size. Civil Rights law! Segregation is bad thing. So, why segregate law-abiding gun owners from society with "Gun Free Zones"? Why discriminate against gun owners by coercing them into concealed carry just to appease the timid and faint of heart who are terrified by the sight of a gun? This is the same thing as the racist policy "separate but equal." Open Carry is a civil right.
    Just one opinion here, but I think you are starting to drift WAY off base. You are comparing apples to oranges now and it won't help your case.
    Rick

    EOD - Initial success or total failure

  10. #39
    Senior Member Array tanksoldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,133
    Bridge (-troll) = [silly thread on combatcarry.com]
    "I am a Soldier. I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight." GEN George S. Patton, Jr.

  11. #40
    VIP Member Array Redneck Repairs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    5,133
    in the intrest of maturity and the high standards of the board i just used the ignore function on ol don because shure as god made little apples if i dont i will embarass us all LOL
    Make sure you get full value out of today , Do something worthwhile, because what you do today will cost you one day off the rest of your life .
    We only begin to understand folks after we stop and think .

    Criminals are looking for victims, not opponents.

  12. #41
    Member Array cali-da's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    California
    Posts
    54
    I would just add that I didn't mean to imply where the rights originally came from. That isn't the nature of the argument. However, to claim a right it has to come from one of the amendments or be based on some sort of written law. While a natural rights argument is proper when discussing where the rights embodied in the Constitution come from, most constitutional arguments for the last 200 years indicate which amendment a given right is in embodied in directly or indirectly.

    You claim that the 9th Amendment documents a right with national or federal expanse that would be valid in the entire country. That doesn't make any sense. You can't ask for federal permission and claim that the authority (regardless of where that authority came from originally) is the amendment that delegates all other matters to the states.

    Also, the Supreme Court only grants review on cases where there is confusion or a question among the state supreme courts or the circuit level courts of appeals. Thus if cert has not been granted, it means more or less there is no confusion generally. Since there has been no case law since 1939, it would seem that for now there is no confusion.

    Finally, citing to the originator of the militia movement clearly indicates that you are outside any mainstream form of thinking and clearly indicates why the NRA or for that matter any other organization is not interested in your case.

  13. #42
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by rstickle
    Just one opinion here, but I think you are starting to drift WAY off base. You are comparing apples to oranges now and it won't help your case.
    Constitutional rights, civil rights, human rights, it is all the same thing coming under the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  14. #43
    Member Array AZG23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Surprise, Az
    Posts
    340
    donhamrick-

    You have been given some good advice here...and I think that before asking for donations, your arguement should be ironed out and more thought involved into how the common should be approached for support.
    I have gotten some complaints so I am going to have to shut this one down.
    Brad B.

  15. #44
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29

    Second Amendment Open Carry = Continued (also for AZG23)

    Cali-da Said:

    I would just add that I didn't mean to imply where the rights originally came from. That isn't the nature of the argument.

    Don't get me started on the nature of Government.
    http://www.zdnet.com/5208-10532-0.ht...ssageID=408806
    http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-02.htm
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/nature_gov.htm

    However, to claim a right it has to come from one of the amendments or be based on some sort of written law.


    I don't want appear to be splitting hairs with you. But you are stuck into believing "rights come from the Constitution and the Amendments." They do not come from the Constitution nor the Amendments but are guaranteed by them. Again, our rights were in existence before the Constitution was ratified.

    While a natural rights argument is proper when discussing where the rights embodied in the Constitution come from, most constitutional arguments for the last 200 years indicate which amendment a given right is in embodied in directly or indirectly.


    Correct approach.

    You claim that the 9th Amendment documents a right with national or federal expanse that would be valid in the entire country. That doesn't make any sense. You can't ask for federal permission and claim that the authority (regardless of where that authority came from originally) is the amendment that delegates all other matters to the states.

    The hell I can't! Try the FCC with PRB-1 for Amateur Radio Operations. It is a Federal Premption of private housing covenants. Federal Preamption is in the Constitution. The BATF can easily issue Federal Preampton of State laws the prohibit open carry across State lines.

    http://www.esnips.com/doc/fa15ed02-e...dge-Walton.pdf

    Also, the Supreme Court only grants review on cases where there is confusion or a question among the state supreme courts or the circuit level courts of appeals. Thus if cert has not been granted, it means more or less there is no confusion generally. Since there has been no case law since 1939, it would seem that for now there is no confusion.

    BULL HOCKY!! I had the PERFECT case for the U.S. Supreme Court. Read the "Reasons to Grant Certiorari" in my appeal:

    http://www.esnips.com/doc/5f5acead-b...SCt-Signed.pdf

    Finally, citing to the originator of the militia movement clearly indicates that you are outside any mainstream form of thinking and clearly indicates why the NRA or for that matter any other organization is not interested in your case.

    BULL HOCKEY! That Patrick Henry is new information for me these past couple of days. I have not had time research Patrick Henry's views. I threw in here to get reactions. I will see if Patrick Henry is an extremist as you imply.

    THE LINKS TO DOCUMENTS ABOVE ARE DOWN FOR THE MOMENT BECAUSE ESNIPS (FILE HOSTING WEBSITE) IS UNDERGOING SOME MAINTENANCE.
    http://www.esnips.com/


    ===============================

    TO AZG23/MODERATOR

    COMPLAINTS ABOUT ME???

    How the hell can I iron out my legal arguments if I don't discuss them with people of differing view points.

    SOME QUOTATIONS ABOUT THIS:

    Where we desire to be informed, ’tis good to contest with men above ourselves; but to confirm and establish our opinions, ’tis best to argue with judgments below our own, that the frequent spoils and victories over their reasons may settle in ourselves an esteem and confirmed opinion of our own.
    (Sir Thos. Browne. Religio Medici. Pt. i. vi.)

    Latin: Alumna Licentiae, quam stulti libertatem vocabant.
    License, which fools call liberty.
    (Tacitus. De Oratorbus. xl.)

    License they mean when they cry Liberty.
    (Milton. Sonnet xii. On the Detraction which Followed.)

    TO THOSE WHO COMPLAINED ABOUT ME:

    Liberty exists in proportion to wholesome restraint: the more restraint on others to keep off from us, the more liberty we have.(Daniel Webster. Speech. May 10, 1847. Dinner of the Charleston (S.C.) Bar.)

    Passion and prejudice govern the world; only under the name of reason.
    (John Wesley. Letter to Joseph Benson. October 5, 1770)

  16. #45
    Ex Member Array donhamrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Everywhere (U.S. Merchant Seaman)
    Posts
    29

    Logo Design Contest

    LOGO DESIGN CONtest
    (No Prizes)





    I am currently designing a logo for my prospective magazine and/or nonprofit organization. It may be a pipe dream but I hope the idea kicks off. By submitting your entry you relinquish all rights to the logo design. However, you will be given full credit for the design. Details to be worked out way later if this idea for a magazine or organization ever gets off the ground.

    I am firming up plans for a magazine or a nonprofit organization (maybe both). I'm working on databases, logos, business plan, etc. This is a by-product of my Second Amendment case for national open carry. I'm also looking for seed money (separate from my court case - AND NOT SOLICITING HERE - JUST REPORTING!) and a Board of Directors (CEO and CFO types) who would like to kick off a magazine and/or a nonprofit organization to do things that the NRA won't do.

    All entries must be done in Adobe Illustrator ".ai" format.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Possible Pro-2nd Amendment Changes in NYS Concealed Carry Law
    By 2edgesword in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: January 30th, 2011, 09:00 AM
  2. A free open society and the 2 end amendment
    By dylistn in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: January 12th, 2011, 10:17 AM
  3. A free open society and the 2 end amendment
    By dylistn in forum General Firearm Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 10th, 2011, 08:39 AM
  4. Continued Right To Carry Concealed
    By fotomaker57 in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: October 13th, 2008, 07:15 PM
  5. Happy Birthday AZG23
    By Bud White in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: July 19th, 2005, 01:10 AM

Search tags for this page

author, noreen campbell, patrick henry

,

patrick henry noreen campbell dickson

Click on a term to search for related topics.