Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

[haymarket]

It is only impossible if one does not accept the idea of state and federal powers mixing.

exactly. And what the poster is doing is making up laws and rules that are NOT in the Constitution to achieve what they object to.

And even then it only makes sort of an Alice In WOnderland upside sense if we ignore the reality that in over 220 years not a single US SUpreme COurt Justice has agreed with that interpretation of congressional powers. That in and of itself demonstrates rather clearly just how far out this theory is and just how it is totally and completely without any actual legal or historical foundation.

Its pure nonsense.

 

[haymarket]

since i state that commerce in a state..it is a state power, how can the federal government regulate?......if it cannot regulate inside a state how does it affect a business?...both powers cannot regulate, /Legislate ..........ON THE SAME ENTITY...the constitution says that!

article 1 section 8 clause 17

X amendment

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government and a state or local government cannot pass laws which regulate the same thing when they are given authority to do so?

Quote me the exact words in the Constitution which bars either side from doing this.

 

[haymarket]

Barkmann - I believe you are so convinced of your own correctness on this matter that nothing will get you to see otherwise because you are 1000% percent invested in your Constitutional interpretation. So lets depart from that for a moment.

Can you answer this simple question please: if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

 

[Master PO]

Where in the Constitution does it say that the federal government and a state or local government cannot pass laws which regulate the same thing when they are given authority to do so?

Quote me the exact words in the Constitution which bars either side from doing this.

article 1 section 8 clause 17, ..second part of clause.


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, --->and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

-----this clause states the federal government will exercise exclusive Legislation,, IF by the CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISLTURE, until that consent is given the feds have no legislative authority there. once the consent is given the state secedes it state authority over that property........ to the federal governments legislative power only.


X amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

----this amendment states that IF a power is not delegated to the federal by the constitution, that it remains a power of the states......if commerce regulation inside a state is a federal power, then it cannot be a state power, and if the power of commerce regulation remains a state power.........then the federal government cannot regulate inside any states.

NOW ...WHICH GOVERNMENT HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INSIDE A STATE.......THERE CAN ONLY BE 1.....FEDERAL OR STATE.

 

[Master PO]

barkmann - i believe you are so convinced of your own correctness on this matter that nothing will get you to see otherwise because you are 1000% percent invested in your constitutional interpretation. So lets depart from that for a moment.

Can you answer this simple question please: if i or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

you know that answer , withOUT me.

 

[haymarket]

article 1 section 8 clause 17, ..second part of clause.


To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, --->and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.

Not one word of what you cited prevents the federal government from passing laws that impact the people of the states. Nor does it negate the previous list of powers that come before it.

X amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Not one word of that prohibits the federal government from exercising the powers given to it in the Constitution even if it touches upon the people of the States and and actions of that State.

 

[haymarket]

you know that answer , withOUT me.

I do NOT know what you believe the answer to be. And I do not want to put words in your mouth so I afford you the respect of a direct question and your answer.

Can you answer this simple question please: if i or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

 

[Moot]

name a limitation on the 2nd...as it applies to the PEOPLE AT LARGE?

AND EXPLAIN, how a "restriction" placed on the federal government , can be a limitation on the people.

The courts have determined that NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE!!!


The 2A doesn't protect or grant anyone the right to use any type of gun anywhere, anyhow on anyone or anything they like. It's just common sense that felons and lunatics shouldn't have the right to own a gun. People also have the right not to have guns on their private property. Ergo, rights are limited. Not sure but I think all of the amendments have limits on individual rights to some degree.




"...In countries which have bills of rights there is a basic statement of freedoms subject to permitted abridgment of such freedoms. Freedoms are restricted in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to maintain moral standards, to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. The United States Supreme Court has over the years qualified the rights in the constitution. Any statement of rights is not absolute and must of necessity be subject to limitations on the above lines. The right of free speech and expression does not extend to sedition, slander, defamation and obscenity. The principle of equality before the law cannot deny a legislature the power to classify persons for legislative purposes and to legislate affecting them, provided that the classification is not arbitrary and is based on a real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Thus the legislature could enact legislation regulating the activities of money lenders. This would amount to a singling out of money lenders and would be prima facie in conflict with the principle of equality before the law. But provided the classification is reasonable and there is a legitimate object to be achieved the legislation would nonetheless be valid. The above are instances of legitimate restrictions of rights. They are intended to illustrate that no right available to an individual or group is or can be absolute. This seems obvious but is often not appreciated."

Human Rights Are Not Absolute



The "obvious" is something the founders probably didn't think needed enumerating in the BoR. But like the invention of the cotton gin...if only they had known about the NRA, gang violence and mass shootings they might have been more specific.

 

[BretJ]

Which completely changes your argument.

So then it is OK to disenfranchise U.S. citizens without due cause as long as it is fine with the majority. So what if it will "only" practically affect 25% of the total population? If it were to be done intelligently with regards to everyones rights, it would affect only the individuals who present an actual danger. The whole point I was originally making was no one disagrees with the notion of preventing dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. The question was how to do so without affecting everyone else's (300,000,000) rights regardless of whether they think those rights are important enough.Obviously, you do not believe they are.

 

[haymarket]

So then it is OK to disenfranchise U.S. citizens without due cause as long as it is fine with the majority. So what if it will "only" practically affect 25% of the total population? If it were to be done intelligently with regards to everyones rights, it would affect only the individuals who present an actual danger. The whole point I was originally making was no one disagrees with the notion of preventing dangerous individuals from obtaining firearms. The question was how to do so without affecting everyone else's (300,000,000) rights regardless of whether they think those rights are important enough.Obviously, you do not believe they are.

Can you please define the term DISENFRANCHISE so that we are both on the same page with your line of inquiry?

 

[Master PO]

Not one word of what you cited prevents the federal government from passing laws that impact the people of the states. Nor does it negate the previous list of powers that come before it..

WANT TO SEE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE???

So much of the (4) clause as related to the seat of Government was agreed to nem: con:

On the residue, to wit, “to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.

Mr. GERRY contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government.

Mr. KING thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word “purchased” the words “by the consent of the Legislature of the State” This would certainly make the power safe.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con: as was then the residue of the clause as amended.

The (5) clause was agreed to nem: con:



THESE ARE THE FOUNDERS DISCUSSING CLAUSE 17 ON SEPT 5 1787....MR GERRY IS SAYING IF WE DONT PUT IN "BY CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISLTURE"....., THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD COME INTO A STATE, BUY UP ITS TERRITORY, AND INSTALL THESE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE, AND THUS INSTILLING FEAR INTO THE STATE, SUBDUING............. IT INTO GENERAL LEGISLALTIVE AUTHORITY.

BY INSERTING...."BY CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISTURE",--------> THIS MAKE THE POWER ...SAFE!

Not one word of that prohibits the federal government from exercising the powers given to it in the Constitution even if it touches upon the people of the States and and actions of that State.

X amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


WHO HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INSIDE A STATE...THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT...THERE CAN ONLY BE 1.

 

[Master PO]

the courts have determined that no rights are absolute!!!


the 2a doesn't protect or grant anyone the right to use any type of gun anywhere, anyhow on anyone or anything they like. It's just common sense that felons and lunatics shouldn't have the right to own a gun. People also have the right not to have guns on their private property. Ergo, rights are limited. Not sure but i think all of the amendments have limits on individual rights to some degree.




"...in countries which have bills of rights there is a basic statement of freedoms subject to permitted abridgment of such freedoms. Freedoms are restricted in the public interest on grounds of national security, to preserve public order, to protect public health, to maintain moral standards, to secure due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others or to meet the just requirements of the general welfare of a democratic society. The united states supreme court has over the years qualified the rights in the constitution. Any statement of rights is not absolute and must of necessity be subject to limitations on the above lines. The right of free speech and expression does not extend to sedition, slander, defamation and obscenity. The principle of equality before the law cannot deny a legislature the power to classify persons for legislative purposes and to legislate affecting them, provided that the classification is not arbitrary and is based on a real and substantial distinction bearing a reasonable and just relation to the objects sought to be achieved. Thus the legislature could enact legislation regulating the activities of money lenders. This would amount to a singling out of money lenders and would be prima facie in conflict with the principle of equality before the law. But provided the classification is reasonable and there is a legitimate object to be achieved the legislation would nonetheless be valid. The above are instances of legitimate restrictions of rights. They are intended to illustrate that no right available to an individual or group is or can be absolute. This seems obvious but is often not appreciated."

human rights are not absolute



the "obvious" is something the founders probably didn't think needed enumerating in the bor. But like the invention of the cotton gin...if only they had known about the nra, gang violence and mass shootings they might have been more specific.

rights are absolute...for the people at large.............they are not for an individual.

this means a right..........cannot be taken away from the public...via law.




How can a restiction on the federal government, be a limation on the people?

 

[haymarket]

WANT TO SEE WHAT I SAY IS TRUE???

So much of the (4) clause as related to the seat of Government was agreed to nem: con:

On the residue, to wit, “to exercise like authority over all places purchased for forts &c.

Mr. GERRY contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government.

Mr. KING thought himself the provision unnecessary, the power being already involved: but would move to insert after the word “purchased” the words “by the consent of the Legislature of the State” This would certainly make the power safe.

Mr. Govr. MORRIS 2ded. the motion, which was agreed to nem: con: as was then the residue of the clause as amended.

The (5) clause was agreed to nem: con:



THESE ARE THE FOUNDERS DISCUSSING CLAUSE 17 ON SEPT 5 1787....MR GERRY IS SAYING IF WE DONT PUT IN "BY CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISLTURE"....., THEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT COULD COME INTO A STATE, BUY UP ITS TERRITORY, AND INSTALL THESE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE, AND THUS INSTILLING FEAR INTO THE STATE, SUBDUING............. IT INTO GENERAL LEGISLALTIVE AUTHORITY.

BY INSERTING...."BY CONSENT OF THE STATE LEGISTURE",--------> THIS MAKE THE POWER ...SAFE!




X amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


WHO HAS THE POWER TO REGULATE INSIDE A STATE...THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OR STATE GOVERNMENT...THERE CAN ONLY BE 1.

1 - the two items you cited from the Constitution DO NOT prohibit the federal government from exercising its constitutionally given powers even if they might impact the same area as those exercised by a state or local government.

2- the opinion of individuals is irrelevant next to the Constitution itself.

3- the answer to your question is obvious and simple: An American in a state is a citizen of both the nation and the state and is under the laws of both and they do not exclude each other.

Now answer my question Herr Barkmann: if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

 

[Master PO]

1 - the two items you cited from the Constitution DO NOT prohibit the federal government from exercising its constitutionally given powers even if they might impact the same area as those exercised by a state or local government.




2- the opinion of individuals is irrelevant next to the Constitution itself.


3- the answer to your question is obvious and simple: An American in a state is a citizen of both the nation and the state and is under the laws of both and they do not exclude each other.

Now answer my question Herr Barkmann: if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?.

what i posted states CLAERLY.........if THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AUTHOIRTY OVER ALL..........then why ,does it have to ask for CONSENT??????

SO THE FOUNDERS at the convention are irrelevant to the constitution.......:roll:

AGAIN I SEE YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION........who has power to regulate inside a state, the federal government or state government there can only be 1.

WRONG...THERE ARE NO U.S CITIZENS UNTIL THE 14TH AMENDMENT......ONLY STATE CITIZENS

now your question,.?........you have not answered mine

 

[Moot]

rights are absolute...for the people at large.............they are not for an indidivual.

How can a restiction on the federal government, be a limation on the people?

So tell me, what part of NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE don't you understand? 'No' means no rights, no human rights, no natural, no civil or legal rights, no unalienable or inalienable rights, no rights are 100% guaranteed. That's just life, ernst.

 

[haymarket]

[/B]

what i posted states CLAERLY.........if THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS AUTHOIRTY OVER ALL..........then why ,does it have to ask for CONSENT???????

Authority over all? :shock::roll: Just in the areas the Constitution gives it authority over the American people.

SO THE FOUNDERS at the convention are irrelevant to the constitution.......

The document the 55 produced and which was ratified by the states is extremely relevant.

AGAIN I SEE YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION........who has power to regulate inside a state, the federal government or state government there can only be 1.

Obviously my answer indicated that BOTH can have legal authority in certain areas and nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

WRONG...THERE ARE NO U.S CITIZENS UNTIL THE 14TH AMENDMENT......ONLY STATE CITIZENS

Is that what the teach you in Wonderland? Or is it the Twilight Zone? So the opening of the Constitution

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

means nothing to you since there were no citizens of the USA until 90 years later!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock::doh:roll:

Now answer my question Herr Barkmann: if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

 

[Master PO]

So tell me, what part of NO RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE don't you understand? 'No' means no rights, no human rights, no natural, no civil or legal rights, no unalienable or inalienable rights, no rights are 100% guaranteed. That's just life, ernst.

can an individual citizen has his rights taken from him if he commits a crime, or endangers the health and safety of the public or on property not his own.....yes.... of coarse.

can the rights of the people recognized by the constitution, be taken away from the general population.........no


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.the declaration if independence is U.S.CODE.... BOOK 1 PAGE 1


5TH--No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

14TH--All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Master PO]

authority over all? :shock::roll: Just in the areas the constitution gives it authority over the american people.

the question is clear....it the congress has authoirty over all america to make law.....why does it have to ask permission to puchase land .........in a state.

 

[BretJ]

Can you please define the term DISENFRANCHISE so that we are both on the same page with your line of inquiry?

disenfranchise: definition of disenfranchise in Oxford dictionary (British & World English) (US)

Googlefu

 

[Master PO]

Authority over all? :shock::roll: Just in the areas the Constitution gives it authority over the American people.

i ask you again........can congress create laws, which gives them powers to act with authority over all property in America?

The document the 55 produced and which was ratified by the states is extremely relevant.

who do you think is sitting there going over this, the members of the convention.

Obviously my answer indicated that BOTH can have legal authority in certain areas and nothing in the Constitution prohibits that.

false the constitution is clear........ if something is federal, it cannot be state, and vice versa

Is that what the teach you in Wonderland? Or is it the Twilight Zone? So the opening of the Constitution

WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

means nothing to you since there were no citizens of the USA until 90 years later!?!?!?!?!?!? :shock::doh:roll:

Now answer my question Herr Barkmann: if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

u.s. citizens are created by the 14th amendment.......until then, there are no u.s citizens...only state citizens.

yes....to your question

 

[haymarket]

disenfranchise: definition of disenfranchise in Oxford dictionary (British & World English) (US)

Googlefu

so just who is it that is being deprived - (that is the dictionary word you cited) of the right to keep and bear arms through reasonable regulation?

Deprive (someone) of a right or privilege:

 

[haymarket]

i ask you again........can congress create laws, which gives them powers to act with authority over all property in America?

In certain areas - yes they certainly can pass laws for the entire nation and since property sits within the national boundaries - of course property is impacted also.



We have ample evidence of this throughout history. Income is property and it is taxed by the national government. In the Second World War against your buddies the fascists, the government had authority over lots of property and even rationed it.

who do you think is sitting there going over this, the members of the convention.

So what? the opinion of individuals is irrelevant compared to the total document from the 55 and as ratified by the States.

false the constitution is clear........ if something is federal, it cannot be state, and vice versa

YOu have been given the opportunity to support this with Constitutional citations and you cannot do so.

u.s. citizens are created by the 14th amendment.......until then, there are no u.s citizens...only state citizens.

So it is your opinion that nobody was a citizen of the US before 1868? That is one of the absolute whackiest things I have ever heard anyone say here.

yes....to your question

and just to be clear - my question which you said YES to was - if I or anyone else takes a willful and deliberate action which causes you physical pain - have you been harmed?

Do you realize Herr Barkmann that you just laid out a principle by which no doctor or nurse can administer most routine medical care or procedures to patients since the Hippocratic Oath that doctors take says "first, do no harm". And you agree that causing pain harms a person. So by your standard, a doctor cannot give an injection or take a blood sample or do anything that causes pain because you claim it is harm and that violates the Hippocratic oath.

Of course - no doctor would see it that way and no hospital would see it that way and neither would be legally prohibited from doint their job - even it causes pain and ( in your opinion) harm.

That is the same stupid thing you are doing with this powers of Congress nonsense. You are creating a roadblock where there is no roadblock and no Supreme COurt decision has ever seen it your way and not even one single Justice has ever seen it your way.

That is how utterly absurd and unreasonable you are being with this contrived Alice In Wonderland position.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

rejected as specious nonsense.

only you have claimed that "shall not be infringed" does not prevent infringements. banning a certain type of arms is an infringement and violates the dictate "shall not be infringed"

Jaeger19 made a very similar claim, earlier in this very thread…

Yep.. the problem is that it means that your right can't be infringed.. it doesn't mean that it can't be regulated...

It was, of course, every bit as nonsensical a claim when Jaeger19 made it as it is every time Haymarket makes it.

 

[Master PO]

In certain areas - yes they certainly can pass laws for the entire nation and since property sits within the national boundaries - of course property is impacted also..

name these certain areas

We have ample evidence of this throughout history. Income is property and it is taxed by the national government. In the Second World War against your buddies the fascists, the government had authority over lots of property and even rationed it..

income tax is not in the body of the constitution...and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about, so don't change the subject.

So what? the opinion of individuals is irrelevant compared to the total document from the 55 and as ratified by the States..

so what ????,so the guys you cite, are sitting there discussing this clause, and you telling me the guys framing the very constitution are irrelevant......

YOu have been given the opportunity to support this with Constitutional citations and you cannot do so..

14th amendment...first line!

So it is your opinion that nobody was a citizen of the US before 1868? That is one of the absolute whackiest things I have ever heard anyone say here.

there are no u.s. citizens until the 14th amendment, there are only state citizens

 

[haymarket]

name these certain areas

Any area listed in the Constitution giving Congress power. See Article I, Section 8.

income tax is not in the body of the constitution...and it has nothing to do with what we are talking about, so don't change the subject.

That comes as a great surprise to every US citizen, every book which has the Constitution in it and the government itself which is largely funded by the income tax. My copy has it right in the Constitution Amendment 16.

You just confirmed that even Wonderland is too rational of a place for your beliefs Barkmann.

so what ????,so the guys you cite, are sitting there discussing this clause, and you telling me the guys framing the very constitution are irrelevant......

I told you the opinion of an individual is irrelevant next to the document itself.

there are no u.s. citizens until the 14th amendment, there are only state citizens

Was George Washington a US citizen?