- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
The south was a different country in thise days; remember? Papist immigrants disarmed? You mean Irish Catholics: you're going to have to prove that one.
And Clinton tried to disarm citizens: right.
Oh, and BTW I reported you for saying that I'm not being truthful. That's BS dude; I wish you'd stop that.
That may be.
Doesn't make them or you correct, however.
That is false. Barron v. Baltimore stands for the proposition that the Bill of Rights, as written, applied only to the United States government. It is black-letter law today. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 in no way made the decision irrelevant, as you assert. Three decades later, in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment made Barron v. Baltimore very relevant.
It was exactly the fact that nothing in the Bill of Rights applied to the states that prompted a long series of Supreme Court decisions that started about 1900--the most recent one being McDonald v. Chicago several years ago. In these decisions, which developed the Court's "incorporation doctrine," it held that first one part of the Bill of Rights and then another was incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and through it applied to the states.
Repeating plainly false statements over and over on these threads doesn't make them any less false. It just teaches more and more people about your credibility.
No one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a public trial in a state court until 1948, when the Supreme Court extended that part of the Sixth Amendment to the states in In Re Oliver. And no one accused of a crime would have had a constitutional right to a speedy trial in a state court until 1967, when the Court extended that part of the same amendment to the states in Klopfer v. North Carolina.
Your false claim also ignores the fact, which the Court stated in Heller, that the Court considers the rights guaranteed by the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments in particular to predate the Constitution.
So even by your own telling of the tale the issue has long been decided and the pronouncement in Barron is now irrelevant. And for most it always was as it was routinely ignored.
I've explained that.What does CORRECT even mean?
Please present the verifiable evidence that nobody got their 6th Amendment rights until the two cases you just listed.
And when the Court made this heartfelt statement of belief - where did it say we could find them before written constitutions?
You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle that the Bill of Rights as written applied only to the U.S. has never been ignored. It's still the reason, just to cite one common example, that people charged with serious crimes like murder have a Fifth Amendment right to be indicted by a grand jury in a federal court, but not in state courts.
Barron v. Baltimore's simple rule, that the Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government and not to the states, was, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, "not of much difficulty" -- self-evident from the structure and literal language of the Constitution. However, in spite of the Court's ruling, state courts still interpreted the Bill of Rights as applying to their own governments, viewing them as reflections of the general laws in Anglo-American culture
The decision was initially ignored by the growing abolitionist movement, some of whom maintained that Congress could constitutionally abolish slavery as a method of protecting slaves' rights under the Bill of Rights. It was largely unknown in the 1860's; during a debate in Congress on the Fourteenth Amendment, Senator John Bingham had to read part of Marshall's opinion out loud to the Senate.[2]
And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling? Because unless you can - it does NOT say what some here are trying to make it say.
You miss the point. So we have a court decision in the 1830's that helped a state save money. And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment. And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?
Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.
Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did
The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS
Just as I stated earlier and there is the verifiable evidence of it.
and this
Barron v. Baltimore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right
can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
That would be the mythical right that even you cannot locate and admit that it is nowhere to be found.
can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
And other than the Fifth Amendment? What about the other rights we have from the Bill of Rights? Are you really trying to state that citizens in the states did not get those either because of the Barron/Baltimore ruling?
And then it was supplanted by the 14th Amendment.
And from that a poster wants to make the case that this blip proves that our rights do not come from the Bill of Rights written decades and generations before this one case even though people still got their rights during those years?
Yeah - go with that as it makes perfect sense.... not in this world but there might be one out there where it does.
Here is evidence that the decision did NOT have the effect some want us to think it did
The Supreme Court . The First Hundred Years . Landmark Cases . Barron v. Baltimore (1833) | PBS
While the case is not in Shakespeares words "much ado about nothing" - it certainly is NOT what some here are trying to make it into nor is it any proof that the Bill of Rights does not give us rights - which was the point of the poster who brought it up in the first place.
that's crap and you know it.
I wouldn't put it quite like that.
If the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 had "supplanted" the principle that the Bill of Rights applied only to the United States, there would have been no reason for the Supreme Court to make all those decisions in which it applied first one bit of the Bill of Rights and then another to the states through the much-debated "doctrine of incorporation."
Second, I don't accept your Jiify-Law "evidence."
By getting an "activist" judge to back them up.
the fact is, the founders intended the 2A to recognize an existing right and therefore, your claim that it was only about joining a militia is patently wrong
Well lets see. some Democrat scum bag politician says LETS BAN all SEMI AUTOS" and a wise man says-NO WAY that violates the natural right of self defense and of free men to be armed. and if enough people agree with the wise man, the scum bag Democrat gets thrown out of office
as it should be
I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.
So its ignorance of history?
The strange birth of NY
The Criminal Steering of Gun Control | Buckeye Firearms Association
n 1911, Sullivan's constituents, (Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office), shared a growing problem with him. Immigrant Italian mafia members were horning in on what had once been their exclusive area of criminal operations. Commercial travelers passing through the district would be relieved of their valuables by armed robbers. Naturally, in order to protect themselves and their property, honest travelers began to arm themselves. Gunfights in what was to become Little Italy became more frequent. This both raised the criminal's risk while conducting armed robbery, and reduced the gang's profit. Sullivan's criminal constituents then "lobbied" Sullivan to introduce a law prohibiting concealed carry of pistols in order to reduce the risk to his criminal constituents while robbing honest people. That Sullivan was successful in passing a law disarming honest citizens so as to aid and abet other criminals is well documented. -
Niagara Falls Reporter OPINION
n 1911, the Irish and Jewish mobsters who put him into office faced a growing problem -- the Italians. Immigrant mafiosi newly arrived from Sicily and Naples were horning in on what had once been their exclusive domain. Gunfights on the Lower East Side and the neighborhood around Mulberry Street that was to become Little Italy grew more and more frequent, and it was getting so that you couldn't even shake down a barber shop or a greengrocer without some guy fresh off the boat taking a shot at you.
Not to worry, Big Tim told the boys. And in 1911, he took care of the problem.
The Sullivan Act was passed into law in New York state in 1911 and remains Big Tim's primary legacy. It effectively banned most people from owning and, especially, carrying handguns. Under the onerous conditions of the corrupted law, a peaceable citizen of sound mind could apply for a pistol permit, but if any of a number of elected or appointed officials objected to its issuance, he or she could be denied the license. The law remains in effect to this day and has been used as the basis for gun laws in many other states and municipalities.
This was the heyday of the pre-Prohibition gangs, roving bands of violent toughs who terrorized ethnic neighborhoods and often fought pitched battles with police. In 1903, the Battle of Rivington Street pitted a Jewish gang, the Eastmans, against the Italian Five Pointers. When the cops showed up, the two underworld armies joined forces and blasted away, resulting in three deaths and scores of injuries. The public was clamoring for action against the gangs.
Yeah; you're telling the same story multilpe times. From The New York Post:
The strange birth of NY
And as we see again: the law was designed around public demand... This is what I've been saying to you over and over again. The proof I showed you from the ATF proper said the very same thing and now your own source says it too! The Niagra Falls story is just an opinion piece based on the same type of paranoia that your posts suffer from.
Your barking into an empty alley dude.
You did NOT answer my question. In fact - you did the opposite since you are using the example of a right that is in the Bill of Rights and the law of the land. I do not know why you would do that and think you could get away with it - but you did just the same.
So lets try this again: can you explain to me how a citizen can exercise and actually employ a RIGHT which exists only in the belief system of another individual?
I think someone's inner child got a great big owey because of Heller. That mean man Scalia made him feel all icky, and he can't do anything about it. So he jumps up and down and screams and makes up fibs about the Constitution--but no one listens to him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?