19 votes

The US Supreme Court: "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution"

This is pretty explosive language form the Supreme COurt of the United States.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

That that means is, what I always tell people, that the Constitution does NOT give you any rights. It protects them. Give that case to anyone who talks about limited rights to citizens.

Link to case: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/case.html

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

hmm

"We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources."

They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.

Considering the timing, this

Considering the timing, this probably in response to the interpretation of the 14th amendment.

You see, contrary to popular belief, the original Constitution wasn't really about protecting your rights; it was about protecting the rights of states from the actions of the federal government. Very few individual rights are actually recognized/protected (and really, without protection, what use is a right? You don't get your rights just because you can morally "prove" you have them).

The 14th amendment raised the question about what rights are so sacred, that no government can violate it. You can side with some guys like Jack Hunter, Forrest Mcdonald or pro-South groups who believe that the 14th amendment was illegal forced upon the South as a punishment for the Civil War. You can side with guys like Thomas Woods Ron Paul who generally believe that the 14th amendment had very limited applications. Or you can side with guys like Antonin Scalia who believe that the 14th amendment was just created to ensure that former slaves/Blacks got equal protection.

At the time it was being written, there was a lot of debate over what those sacred rights were. In the end, they almost decided to just include the entire BOR (including the 2nd amendment), but it was decided to leave it more open-ended. Basically, they wanted to give Congress and the Supreme Court the ability to interfere with states who where infringing on basic rights or engaging in unequal protection under the law without requiring another amendment.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Cyril's picture

I can think of at least one HUGE tool of plunder phrased there

I'm no constitutional expert but I can think of at least one HUGE tool of plunder phrased there, in that 14th Amendment: I'll leave it to anyone's guess. In its section 4.

Was once, long ago - at 14A's inception - only mostly with a (promising) "potential", but now very "actual" in its being put in application by Congress.

Isn't it?

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.

http://Laissez-Faire.Me/Liberty

"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius