Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government - Page 4

Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government

This is a discussion on Who Should Protect Our Rights...Federal or State Government within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mlr1m Why would any government want to protect the individual rights of citizens? It serves no purpose to them. We are in ...

View Poll Results: Who Should Protect/Guarantee our 2A rights?

Voters
129. You may not vote on this poll
  • Federal Government

    88 68.22%
  • State Government

    41 31.78%
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 110
  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663

    Of the people

    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Why would any government want to protect the individual rights of citizens? It serves no purpose to them. We are in a constant battle, one side trying to protect its rights, the other tryin to usurp them.

    Its the individual that is responsible for protecting his rights. When the government passes a law they further restrict your rights. Sometimes this is good, but its the people that must make sure the government never gets to powerful.

    Michael
    By oath officials must uphold rights as they have sworn
    To preserve a d protect our constitution

    It is also in their best interest to do so.

    Of course we would not be having this discussion if
    Things worked as well in practice as in theory.


  2. #47
    Member Array user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Va. & Middle of Nowhere, W.Va.
    Posts
    386
    The correct answer is, "false". It's up to us to protect our rights. We need to promote good candidates for office and supervise how they select judges. There are rights we have as against the United States, and as against the state we live in. And as a student of history and the law, I tell you I am absolutely amazed at how much each generation of Americans has voluntarily given up. Amazed at the stupidity and short-sightedness. As Benjamin Franklin predicted (he knew I'd be amazed).
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    Nothing I say as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice. Legal questions should be presented to a competent attorney licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  3. #48
    Member Array swaggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    132
    I vote FED for 2A as it is a national document that guarantees that particular right. I believe that states should recognize and support that right and ideally should have similar provisions in their own state constitutions.
    Actually, it's not that the FED should support that right, they just shouldn't do anything to hamper/impeede it.
    "Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less."
    "Save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword" - Gen. R. E. Lee

  4. #49
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by jualdeaux View Post
    Because the federal government will screw it up, accidentally or on purpose. Imagine this. The feds create a national CHL. They then set the rules the states have to follow. One is you can't carry in bars but you can carry in restaurants that have a bar in them. There are three things this does. One, it might make it nicer for me in Ohio as we can't carry at Applebees. Now we can. But, it makes it stricter in Indiana as they can carry in bars. Also, this makes people in states like Vermont and Alaska, where they don't need CHLs to carry, illegal without the CHL.

    Two more things. Who in the federal government do you want making the laws on this? The democratic leadership we have now? I sure don't. What agency is going to regulate them? The BATFE? With their track record? I sure don't want them in charge. Plus, all gun grabbers would have to focus on is the federal government to get stuff passed. Right now the states are in charge and there are very many more state reps they have to bribe to get changes than federal reps.

    it only took two years for the House, Senate and the Presidency to swing to the anti side.
    The federal government can't infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. They can prevent the states from violating our rights. There's nothing in the arguments for incorporation of the 2nd amendment that would grant any power to the federal government to violate our individual rights.

  5. #50
    Senior Member Array dldeuce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    "Incorporation", or case law declaring that the provisions of the Bill of Rights in question apply to the States as well as to the federal government, was only hinted at in the 1890s (in Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co. v. Chicago), and only truly began in the mid 20's with Gitlow v. New York (1925). Keep this in mind.

    Slavery was a legal practice in the United States from the date of the Constitution's ratification, and the practice wasn't officially outlawed until 1919 with the passage of the 18th Amendment. The courts condoned slavery for almost 150 years. After this, the United States condoned "Separate but Equal", an invention of the Courts, I should add, until Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. The courts condoned institutionalized segregation for 60 years. Women could not vote in the vast majority of United States until the passage of the 19th Amendment. The courts condoned barring women from voting for almost 150 years.

    Do you have any guarantee that the Courts won't reverse their opinion on "incorporation"? Do you have any idea how many long-standing positions the Supreme Court has reversed in its history?

    The shift from less to more friendly laws towards firearms and firearms ownership is already in play, and has been for a very long time. States have been moving in this direction for nearly a century, a quarter of that before "incorporation" ever came to life, and three quarters of that after it came to life and without the Second Amendment ever being "incorporated".

    Think about that.


    -B
    I still don't understand your point. Incorporation of the 2nd amendment doesn't give the federal government any additional power to violate our rights. They can continue to fail to protect our rights from state infringement. I don't see how that empowers the states to violate our rights.

  6. #51
    Senior Member Array Rob P.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    In the sticks
    Posts
    631
    Quote Originally Posted by Guns and more View Post
    The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the power of the federal government. Our founding fathers were wise. Less federal government is better government. I voted state.
    Your premise is almost correct. The original purpose of the BOR was to limit the federal government.

    That original purpose was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. At that point in time, the individual states GAVE UP their rights to legislate the rights enumerated in the BOR.

    You can argue until you are blue in the face (and hold your breath and kick your feet too) but you cannot conclude that states rights continue to include the original amendments to the constitution and that the federal gov has no ability to legislate there. That position fails to include the 14th amendment which is a duly enacted and ratified part of the Constitution within its rationale.

    This is why the "States' Rights" argument fails completely when discussing the RTKBA. Just as it does when discussing speech, religion, search & seizure, self incrimination, etc. The issue is moot because when the 14th was ratified, the individual states ceded that power.

  7. #52
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by dldeuce View Post
    I still don't understand your point. Incorporation of the 2nd amendment doesn't give the federal government any additional power to violate our rights. They can continue to fail to protect our rights from state infringement. I don't see how that empowers the states to violate our rights.
    Then let me be clearer: what happens if/when the Court reverses its opinion on incorporation? Why should the protection of rights be contingent on a court decision that can be overturned? Why should it not be reliant upon the decision of the citizens of the states? You realize that we citizens of the states have been doing this for the last 80 years without any incorporation of the Second Amendment, right?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  8. #53
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    This is why the "States' Rights" argument fails completely when discussing the RTKBA. Just as it does when discussing speech, religion, search & seizure, self incrimination, etc. The issue is moot because when the 14th was ratified, the individual states ceded that power.
    Then why hasn't Cruikshank been overturned?


    -B
    RIP, Jeff Dorr: 1964 - July 17, 2009. You will be missed.


    Defensive Carry Search Tips


    Step 1 - Choose a subforum on right side under "Search in Forum(s)"
    Step 2 - Type general topic of interest in "Search by Keyword" textbox.
    Step 3 - Read results and refine/repeat as necessary.

  9. #54
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,423
    If both the State Govt & Fed Govt would just keep their doggone hands completely off of our rights they would not need much protecting.
    Liberty Over Tyranny Μολὼν λαβέ

  10. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663

    Finally, words of wisdom

    Quote Originally Posted by QKShooter View Post
    If both the State Govt & Fed Govt would just keep their doggone hands completely off of our rights they would not need much protecting.
    Well said. A big thumbs up Mr. QK.

  11. #56
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,663

    In a sense it really has

    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Then why hasn't Cruikshank been overturned?

    -B
    In a sense it really has been overturned. If you took it literally, there would be and have been a wide range of BOR violations which are now prohibited to the states. Everything from school board prescribed prayers to beating confessions out of unrepresented little thugs.

    I think the reason Cruishank has not been overturned with respect to 2A has to do with courts and their mindset. Most of the time they are dealing with criminal matters, and judges get into an anti-mentality after seeing case after case after case of rampant gun crime. Then they search for excuses to rule in particular ways which they think will enhance society's safety.

    I don't think the entire question (series of issues and questions) have really been addressed in a comprehensive way. It has been piecemeal. And 2A is the piece still hanging out there. None of this is logically neat or clean or nice. What we have is one mess piled onto of another mess on top of yet a third mess; and everyone is thinking "the law" (especially the constitution) must be a thing of beauty; it is not.

  12. #57
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    HMMM. Then why in the world do you persistently come here to argue that it is perfectly OK for the states to violate those rights and moreover argue that the Federal government has no role in protecting those rights against the individual state's interest?

    You are very inconsistent in both your views and your arguments. That's OK, we all are inconsistent and we all hold self contradictory views on various subject, but how in the world can the rights apply to all (as you state) because they are G-D given, but then argue it is OK for the states to violate those rights?
    Shadowsbane correctly pointed out that I never implied that states should violate our individual rights. In fact, states that infringe individual rights should be held accountable by the people of that state.

    Yes, the Federal government has no power to intrude on state government. It has no role in state government at all.

    The fact that you think my views are inconsistent demonstrate you still don't understand what I am discussing. Our rights are God given. We have them at conception. We form governments to protect those rights. We are subject ot the jurisdiction of two socereign governments: Federal and State. The Federal government has specific enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights enumerates specific prohibitions on that government.

    The states have the power, unless restricted by their state constitution, to enact whatever measures the people see fit. The Federal government is not a higher authority than state government. Did you read Federalist 45, which I posted specifically for your benefit?

    Do you expect the citizens of the states to actually physically need to fight to retain their rights? What a ridiculous position.
    Huh? I expect the citizens to physically vote for their representatives. These representatives will assure our rights as they do in virtually every state in the Union. You, and many others, speak of the government as the enemy, an uncontrolled entity. The fact is that we choose the government. We are the government.

  13. #58
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob P. View Post
    Your premise is almost correct. The original purpose of the BOR was to limit the federal government.
    And that has never changed.

    That original purpose was changed with the ratification of the 14th amendment. At that point in time, the individual states GAVE UP their rights to legislate the rights enumerated in the BOR.
    Would you give up your right to keep and bear arms? Would you give up your right to speak freely? Would you give up your right to travel from city to city? Exactly what right would you voluntarily give up?

    Are you beginning to understand why your argument is flawed? The states never ceded power nor rights to the Federal government. The Fourteenth Amendment was solely aimed at providing citizenship for the newly freed slaves. It has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights.

    You can argue until you are blue in the face (and hold your breath and kick your feet too) but you cannot conclude that states rights continue to include the original amendments to the constitution and that the federal gov has no ability to legislate there. That position fails to include the 14th amendment which is a duly enacted and ratified part of the Constitution within its rationale.
    Can you point out where the Bill of Rights is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment? This should be enlightening.
    I urge you to read Charles Fairman's 1949 Stanford Law Review Article. It is the seminal work on the issue.

  14. #59
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by BAC View Post
    Then why hasn't Cruikshank been overturned?


    -B
    Its premise has been thoroughly repudiated by case after case where the courts have applied provisions of the BOR against the states via the 14th Amendment. The only reason that Cruikshank has not been directly overturned is because SCOTUS has not yet ruled directly on the issue. If and when it does, unless it departs completely from standard 14th Amendment jurisprudence, it will overturn Cruikshank.

  15. #60
    Member Array XDFender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Shawnee, Kansas
    Posts
    249
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Can you point out where the Bill of Rights is mentioned in the Fourteenth Amendment? This should be enlightening.
    Uhh... the 14th Amendment clearly was intended by Congress to extend the protections of the BOR to the people vis-a-vis the states, as is established by the words of the drafter and primary sponsor of the 14th Amendment in Congressional debates on the matter.

    I would be interested to know, since you don't believe the 14th Amendment applies the BOR to the states, what exactly you believe the 14th Amendment does do, and why you believe it to be so limited.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 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. Is the strongest reason for 2A is to protect against tyranny in Government?
    By Thanis in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2008, 08:52 AM
  2. Sign the petition today together we can protect our Second Amendment rights.
    By goawayfarm in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: January 31st, 2008, 09:46 PM
  3. Put down your guns the Government will protect you!!
    By airbornerangerboogie in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: April 6th, 2007, 09:48 PM
  4. If Government can't protect driver's info why is gun registration a good idea?
    By Dakotaranger in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 1st, 2006, 05:36 PM
  5. Senate Votes to Protect Second Amendment Rights During Emergencies
    By dr_cmg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 15th, 2006, 11:09 PM

Search tags for this page

government infringing on our rights

,
government is the protector of our rights
,
how does our government defend gun regulation?
,

how does the government protect our rights

,
how each branch of the goverment protects our rights
,
how far should the government protect our rights for safety
,
in what way was this amendment originally only binding on the federal government?
,
should the federal goverment have any say on the second amendment
,

what governments were made to protect our rights

,
what is the legal source of federal government to protect civil rights?
,
which government focuses on protecting the rights
,
who should protect the rights of the children? state or federal government ?
Click on a term to search for related topics.

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors