Alan Gura is working feverishly to have the 2nd Amendment applied to the States, ostensibly to protect the people’s right to keep and bear arms. It is said that the 2nd Amendment is useless unless it is applied to the States. But I for one believe our founding fathers would have strenuously disagreed with that notion, especially since the first ten amendments of our federal Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment, was specifically intended by the founders to restrict the newly created federal government and was not intended to create a legal path for the federal government to enter the States and impose its will upon the people under the pretext of enforcing the federal “Bill of Rights” and its restrictions upon the people of the various States. In fact, the people of the various States intended to bind and enforce the restrictions of the federal Bill of Rights upon the federal government!

The simple truth is, after creating our federal Constitution with its delegated powers which became effective in 1789, ten amendments were quickly adopted [1791] which were intentionally designed “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers”, and this is stated in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789

Perhaps Alan Gura is not aware but the people of each state prior to creating our federal Constitution had created State constitutions with specific rights and privileges to be protected. For example, the people of Pennsylvania declared in their State’s Declaration of Rights, adopted in 1776:

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

And, after placing the right to bear arms in their State Constitution to restrict their state government, they went on to place this same restriction on the federal government by the adoption of the adoption of the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution, thereby preventing the federal government from using its force to enter the states and infringing upon rights already acknowledged and protected under each State’s Constitution!

As a matter of fact, the people of the various States intentionally adopted the Tenth Amendment to specifically preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan, protecting the right of the people, in each of the various states, to determine their own destiny within their own State’s borders!

So, does Alan Gura not realize “progressives” who are dedicated enemies of federalism are anxiously awaiting a time when and if the right to keep and bear arms within each state will be in the hands of federal judges who may protect that right subject only to necessary and proper regulations which are made for the general welfare of the people of the united states, but will most certainly be enacted to effectively disarm the people and dissolve the protection now afforded under State Constitutions?

Apparently there are those who do not understand the advantages of federalism, our Constitution’s plan, which was intended to preclude an absolute power being created in Washington, but which some, including Alan Gura, foolishly seem to be only too willing to set aside under the false hope that the federal government will protect their right to keep and bear arms.

Question is, will the federal government protect that right? History proves otherwise. Keep in mind the federal government has the exclusive power to enact legislation in the District of Columbia and has effectively disarmed the people in spite of the 2nd Amendment, and they now keep the people disarmed in spite of the Heller Case by newly creative rules and regulations allegedly enacted for the public safety which are applied to law abiding citizens seeking to bear arms, but in effect the rules and regulations adopted in spite of the 2nd Amendment makes it almost impossible, and extremely costly, for law abiding Citizens to purchase and register a handgun in the District of Columbia. Do we really want the 2nd Amendment applied to the various states which opens a legal path for Congress to impose the District of Columbia’s rules and regulations within the borders of every state in the Union? If not, then why does Alan Gura work so hard to falsely pretend the 2nd Amendment may be constitutionally be enforced upon the states under the 14th Amendment?

If Alan Gura gets his way and has the 2nd Amendment applied to the States and federal judges start enforcing the 2nd Amendment upon the States, can we really expect the federal government to not then apply the same federal rules and regulations now used in the District of Columbia upon the people in every state in the union which are intentionally designed to disarm law abiding citizens under the guise of the people‘s general welfare?

I’m beginning to suspect Alan Gura’s real motives may not be as noble as he claims because those in the past who have pretended the 14th Amendment has made various parts of the federal Bill of Rights applicable to the States have done so for nefarious reasons and to enlarge the reach and power of the federal government while imposing their personal whims and fancies upon the people of the United States. One such activist being none other than Ruth Bader Ginsburg who began her assault upon the 14th Amendment during the 1970’s while volunteering for the ACLU and now sits on the U.S. Supreme Court, and has proven to be a domestic enemy of our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

Aside from the above, I think concerned Americans who support a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for their own defense, defense of their family and in defense of the state and the country, ought to check their State’s declaration of rights and make certain there is appropriate wording that clearly protects this right for all citizens not convicted of a felony or other infamous crime who may then be subject to such restrictions as the Legislature may think proper. Bottom line is, each state must declare in their state Constitution something to the effect that:

no law shall be passed or enforced in this State abridging the right of citizens to keep and bear arms for their own defense and defense of the state excepting regulations which may be adopted and imposed upon persons who have been duly convicted of a felonious crime.

It’s time for those who support the right to keep and bear arms to make certain this right is protected in each state’s Constitution! Keep in mind the buck stops with We the People and We the People must take back our country from all those who are now acting in rebellion to our written constitutions, state and federal, and the documented intentions and beliefs under which these constitutions were adopted!

JWK


"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ...Jefferson

Well, I agree. I agree about States Rights, and I also tend to agree with you about Gura in general.

If you read the transcript of the Heller trial, it's easy to see that he plans to throw many gun owners under the train. His comments both there and in general conversation on various websites indicate that he equates _rights_ with privileges. You and I both know rights are by the very definition of the word _absolute_ and granted by God himself, yet he talks about how "no right is absolute". That is utter insanity, and in all of my short 45 years of life I never heard such horse crap - until the last couple of years, at least - and much of it since that time has been uttered from his mouth.

Unfortunately, when you look at justice Scalia's statement on Heller, you'll see largely the same crap, except for the fact that Scalia wraps the turd in sugar to keep most of the lemmings from seeing what he's saying. To make a long statement short, he went on talking about how all the evidence shows that the 2nd amendment means exactly what it says, but then he turned right around and said something like "but that fact doesn't mean that we're gonna repeal laws on the books or that we can't place 'reasonable restrictions' on the rights of the people", and then we hear him claiming in so many words that military style weapons aren't covered by the 2nd amendment???!!! - Now WTF does THAT mean? I'll tell ya what it means... He's saying that he understands what the constitution says, but he's gonna ignore it so his elite buddies can continue to put the screws to the public harder and harder.

So yes, I do believe that in the end we're going to find that Gura is really working for the enemies of freedom, and all these court actions will paint us into a corner made up of legal mumbo jumbo designed to fool the average ignorant lemming into thinking the constitution doesn't mean what it says. :-(

Bad times are coming. Hell, they're already here, but worse is coming. As hard as we're getting it in the rear at this point, just think what they'll do when we're entirely disarmed. What would the minute men have done at Lexington and Concord if the King had taken their weapons away more slowly over a longer period of time before that, with the result being that they now had no way of stopping the Kings army from going to take the last of their powder and arms?

I wish more people would read the various supporting documents related to the constitution. Things such as the congressional record from the time, as well as the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers. I gotta tell ya, at this point I believe the Anti-Federalists were _absolutely_ right. It's almost like they had a crystal ball. They foresaw nearly every pitfall of the constitution that has been exploited by the elitists from that time to now.

People need to stop taking other people's word for what the constitution says and what the founders meant when they wrote it. People need to start reading it for themselves. NOW. YESTERDAY. That way when some judge spews lies about it, they will see through the lies and know the liar for who he is.

People need to wake up. Time has run out.

(10-09-2009 02:15 AM)timb503 Wrote:  Well, I agree. I agree about States Rights, and I also tend to agree with you about Gura in general.

The question is, Is Alan Gura a wolf in sheep’s clothing?


Keep in mind that the people, in a number of states having placed the right to keep and bear arms in their State Constitution to restrict their state government from infringing upon this right, they went on to place this same restriction on the federal government by the adoption of the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution, the Second Amendment intended to prohibit the federal government from using its force to enter the states and infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms.

It should also be noted that one of the first ten amendments added to our federal Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, specifically announced and declared the preservation of federalism, our Constitution’s plan, intended to protect the right of the people, in each of the various states, to be in charge of determining their own destiny within their own State’s borders in matters which affected the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State as was mentioned in Federalist No. 45. In fact, the Tenth Amendment gave constitutional force and effect to the intentions expressed in Federalist No. 45!

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

Question is, why does Alan Gura work so feverishly to accomplish the “progressive’s goal” which is to eradicate federalism and create a federal dictatorial power allowing federal judges to enter the states under the 2nd Amendment and impose their “interpretations” of the right to keep and bear arms upon the people in every state in the Union, and thereby approve and dictate despotic rules and regulations concerning the right to keep and bear arms as necessary and proper regulations for the general welfare of the people of the united states, and will most certainly be approved by progressive federal judges to effectively disarm the people and dissolve the protection now afforded under State Constitutions? My guess is, Alan Gura is a progressive wolf in sheep’s clothing!

One of the biggest myths promoted by progressives, starting with the Warren Court, is the 14th Amendment created a legal path for the federal government to enter the States to impose the federal Bill of Rights upon the States. Perhaps Alan Gura would like to take the time and support his unsubstantiated opinions in this forum. I will be more than willing to enlighten him to the documented historical facts.


JWK



Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Still right with ya. I think they're just using every means possible to further cement their "legitimacy" (ha ha... right) as far as the courts are concerned. I mean, they've done the same thing with the commerce clause for years, and the recent "supreme kangaroo court" ruling about medical marijuana in California is a good example. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Justice Thomas disagreed, but for all his nice words, the wrong side won (no, I don't use the stuff, but the constitution is quite clear on states rights, so I have to support the California law). I've read that the feds even want to push that concept to regulate/tax back yard vegetable gardens by claiming that any food you grow is something you would otherwise have bought through interstate trade, therefore you are having an effect on interstate trade and they can regulate you. That is the height of insanity, and in my view they have broken their oath to uphold the constitution by changing its supposed meaning at will to fit whatever outcome they desire at the moment. If that's not criminal, I don't know what is.

Same thing with the recent Montana and Tennessee gun laws that say the federal rules don't apply to guns built and sold within those states. The feds are hopping mad and the atf has already issued warnings to dealers in those states saying that the new state laws are "null and void" in the face of federal law. You and I both know that's a load of horse manure, but I believe I read the other day that the montana law is already on its way to the supreme court. Three guesses what the court will say.

King George almost seems tame by comparison to some of the stuff they're pulling.

But in short, yes, I believe Gura is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

(10-09-2009 11:16 PM)timb503 Wrote:  Still right with ya. I think they're just using every means possible to further cement their "legitimacy" .... But in short, yes, I believe Gura is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Did you see the following?

SEE: Social Conservatives Mount Last-Ditch Effort to Stop Hate Crimes Bill


But the real question is, under what constitutional authority does Congress act to make it a federal crime to assault people because of their sexual orientation?

What article, section, clause or amendment have the American people adopted in the federal Constitution to allow federal prosecutors for the first time to intervene in cases of violence perpetrated against gays.?

Seems to me the Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from sticking their noses in such matters. But I could be wrong and will anxiously await some answers. I suspect the progressives are on the move once again with the 14th Amendment incorporation myth.

I wonder if Alan Gura who alleges the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment enforceable upon the States will also defend the hate crimes bill, alleging that the 14th Amendment also gives Congress the power to adopt the hate crimes bill..


JWK


“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. “___ South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905)

I'd say Gura will jump right on it if he thinks he can make money on it. Typical "show me the money" guy, who prefers lots of rules and confusion in order to create more litigation for himself and his buddies.

But there is _nothing_ in the constitution that makes it okay for the federal government to stick its nose into state issues. Period.

All the lies of paid off judges and the twisted half-truths from the "owned" mainstream media might be able to fool the lemmings, but it can never change the truth.

But that's one of the many problems with socialists. To them, the truth is whatever they can make people believe. They have no principles whatsoever. Just greed and double standards.

(10-11-2009 09:48 PM)timb503 Wrote:  But there is _nothing_ in the constitution that makes it okay for the federal government to stick its nose into state issues. Period.

What? Are you saying that Federalism is a Johnny come lately that was never meant to have that much power or control? And all this time I thought the only reason we were divided into states is so we could see where the car up ahead is from.

States Rights. I bet that term keeps a few up at night shuddering in fear that the idea might catch on....again.