Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeffrey C. Dege) wrote in
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]: 

> On 27 Nov 2003 17:12:59 -0800, The Lone Weasel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: 
>>
>>Well Snout, if the Second Amendment grants a gun right to
>>"the people" apart from serving in a well-regulated militia
>>like the National Guard, where are your examples of these
>>personal gun rights under the Second Amendment in state
>>case law?  
> 
> 
> www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/wbardwel/public/nfalist/n
> unn_v_state.txt 
> 
> 
> Cite as Nunn v. State, 1 Kelly 243 (Ga. 1846)
> 
>                       AMERICUS, JULY TERM, 1846        243
> 
>                      Nunn v. The State of Georgia
> 
>            No. 36.-Hawkins H. Nunn vs. The State of
>            Georgia. 

...


The language of the second amendment is broad enough to 
embrace both Federal and State governments--nor is there 
anything in its terms which restricts its meaning.  The 
preamble which was prefixed to these amendments shows, that 
they originated in the fear that the powers of the general 
government were not sufficiently limited.  Several of the 
States in their act of ratification recommended that further 
restrictive clauses should he added.  And in the first 
session of the first Congress, ten of these amendments 
having been agreed to by that body, and afterwards 
sanctioned by three-fourths of the States, became a part of 
the Constitution.  But admitting all this, does it follow 
that because the people refused to delegate to the general 
government the power to take from them the right to keep and 
bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State 
governments?  Is this a right reserved to the States or to 
themselves?  Is it not an inalienable right, which lies at 
the bottom of every free government?  We do not believe 
that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of 
disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer 
it on the local legislatures.  This right is too dear to be 
confided to a republican legislature.

...

> 
>       We are of the opinion, then, that so far as the act
>       of 1837 
> seeks to suppress the practice of carrying certain weapons
> secretly, that it is valid, inasmuch as it does not deprive
> the citizen of his natural right of self-defence, or of his
> constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  But that so
> much of it, as contains a prohibition against bearing arms
> openly is in conflict with the Constitution, and void; and
> that, as the defendant has been indicted and convicted for
> carrying a pistol, without charging that it was done in a
> concealed manner, under that portion of the statute which
> entirely forbids its use, the judgment of the court below
> must be reversed, and the proceeding quashed. 

Okay, let's see you cite a dozen state cases that follow Judge 
Lumpkin; because I can cite dozens of state cases that agree 
with Cockrum v State, and that's just using the cases at NFA.  
I haven't seen any other cases like Nunn...

Have you, Jiffyloon?

_______________


The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it 
is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the 
amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the 
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep 
and bear arms shall not be infringed."  O. & W. Dig. 7.  The 
clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said 
to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: 
"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, 
in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 
14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the 
perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, 
that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and 
enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in 
our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to 
the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal 
right to the citizen.  The right of a citizen to bear arms, 
in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. 
He does not derive it from the state government, but 
directly from the sovereign convention of the people that 
framed the state government.

The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad 
object in relation to the government, and in addition 
thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen.

The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense 
of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it 
from the state government, but directly from the sovereign 
convention of the people that framed the state government. 
It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the 
citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of 
government."  A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or 
impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of 
the law-making power.

Cockrum v. State, 24 Texas 394 (1859)



-- 

Join the NRA Blacklist!
http://www.nrablacklist.com/

The Lone Weasel