Search found 2 matches

by stevie_d_64
Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:09 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Parker v. District of Columbia Cross Petition
Replies: 23
Views: 3651

Thats cool Frankie...I'm not trying to sell everyone at once...No big deal...

If you line up all the first ten Amendments and see to whom they apply to "the people" for the most part, and they seem to me to define mostly what the government in general should NOT do, as in limitations and other restrictions...

And that the right to keep and bear arms has always been that little wink wink, nod nod kind of thing that was suppose to be that check valve to remind the government that its not a good idea to press the issue too much against the individual (the people)...Thats what kinda pushes me to look at the "free state" phrase that way...

Yours and my "free state" condition of existence in this country is God given, not at the behest and dominance of an elected body...Sure we elect them and send them up there to do certain things we mostly agree with...Thats why we are not a democracy in it purest sense, we are a representative republic...And they should know the boundaries of their position...

I think over the years they have lost their way somewhat...

You nailed it with this comment:
But the thing is, we still end up at the same place. The prefatory clause could just as well have read, "A well regulated militia being necessary for the formation of an excellent marching band....." and it wouldn't change the fact that the declarative clause says, ".....the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Do you have the Second Amendment "primer" book???

My Dad gave me one for Christmas a couple of years ago...It has some fabulous english scholars who have broken down the wording on this and they left out some things, or maybe created some questions that need to have an answer...I still review it from time to time...

I highly recommend picking one up at a gunshow if you don't have one...At least you'll have a good read for a while...

You might see a few things I have since I started studying it a while back...At least it got me to thinking outside the box on this...
by stevie_d_64
Mon Nov 05, 2007 3:48 pm
Forum: Federal
Topic: Parker v. District of Columbia Cross Petition
Replies: 23
Views: 3651

First, Kalrog, you be doing Yeoman's work here keeping up with this one! Thanks!!!

Second, and something I gleened from the article:
That part of the ruling raises these potential issues: First, is the District, as the seat of the national government, not a “free State� of the kind mentioned in the Second Amendment so the Amendment’s guarantee of access to arms for a state “militia� does not even apply; second, is it a state like all of the regular states and thus, because of the 1886 decision in the Presser case, the Amendment does not apply; and, third, is it a unique federal enclave that — like the rest of the federal government — does have to obey the Second Amendment?
Now I have a disagreement with what I feel is a general misinterpretation of the phrase "free State"...

In some writings "state" is not capitalized, and in some it is...

So I have a different interpretation to what "free state" means in this Amendment...And its not one that changes the "individual" or "inalienable" right to keep and bear arms, but one that does bolster it if the English majors and other Historians can bear with my train of thought...

BTW, I have presented this to a legal mind who is certified to present cases before the Supreme Court, and he likes my logic...

A "free state" in my opinion is a personal status, or condition of existance...

We are all considered "free men/women" by our mere citizenship, much more from a moral standpoint...So our right to be in a "free state" is not so much what the Amendment could have been trying to tell us about "the state" (i.e.: government, country, state, lines on a map, etc etc)...

I believe it meant more towards the individual and your right to be in a "free state" of existance is more relavent to the Amendments meaning than a collective body like a government or place on a map...

Most of these other Amendments, if I am not mistaken, don't really bolster the rights of the states as a collective body, but more to the individual rights we have as citizens of this country...

Thats why I can cast out my bias as a pro-RKBA citizen, and as an associate justice of the Supreme Court could easily, and without any hesitation opinion to the individual/inalienable right to keep and bear arms, and rule that the ban in the District of Columbia to be un-Constitutional and call for an immediate reversal of the restriction on its residents...Period!

Let them choose to empower themselves, or not...But I am going to protect the individual, and allow the State to be protected by those individuals as was the original intent of the Amendment!

Not being a lawyer, I do think I would look great in a black robe, and I believe I could spend some time cleaning up some of the nonsense outside individual rights as well...

The only problem...Is I do not play golf! Thats going to probably annoy CJ Roberts and Sam Alito...Not sure if Scalia or Thomas still play...Those others??? Nahhh...Leave 'em be... ;-)

Return to “Parker v. District of Columbia Cross Petition”