National Preemption

[eye95]

The proposal recognizes that the A in RKBA means far more than guns.

The old English duty to keep and bear arms once included swords, then bows and arrows, and even eventually crossbows.

 

[Ghost1958]

The proposal recognizes that the A in RKBA means far more than guns.

The old English duty to keep and bear arms once included swords, then bows and arrows, and even eventually crossbows.

The RTKABA goes back much much farther to include rocks, clubs, sharp sticks .

Before gov of any kind and before any man made laws.

 

[Ghost1958]

Edited by Ghost1958

A Bill to Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from Infringement by Local and State Governments

An effort is afoot again to protect individuals from one State having their Right to Keep and Bear Arms from being infringed by another. This effort takes the form of a proposed federal law requiring all States to recognize the firearm licenses of another. There are two main flaws with such a scheme:

One, a Right cannot be licensed. Licenses are, by definition, permission being granted by the government for an individual to act in a given way. Rights, by definition, are acts that an individual can take regardless of government will. Therefore, a Right cannot be licensed! Any act by any government creating or promoting licensure, no matter how liberal, cannot be, by definition, a protection of a Right.

Two, that which the government undertakes to permit, it may chose to prohibit. When we think that allowing government to allow us to act in a given way, we are accepting their authority over that action. That necessarily means that we allow them to prohibit the activity.

For these reasons, this Second Amendment activist opposes so-called national reciprocity bills. If the federal government wants to protect citizens of all States from State and local infringements on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, they need to follow the example of State pre-emption laws and pass laws proscribing governmental behavior that infringes on the Right.

To that end, I would propose this alternative to national reciprocity. (I am not a lawyer, so look to the intent of this proposal. Someone with legal writing skills could always repair the flaws.)

The Bill: Edited by a Ghost1958


Whereas the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects the Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms from infringement, without specifying what entities may not infringe, thereby enjoining all governmental entities from so infringing.]

Took a while but I took out all the infringements.

2A is more elegant and clear.

 

[eye95]

You have put altered words in a quote box that implies I wrote those words. Please correct this misrepresentation.

 

[Ghost1958]

You have put altered words in a quote box that implies I wrote those words. Please correct this misrepresentation.

I did so you wouldnt vapor lock.

But if you had read the whole post you would have seen I clearly stayed I as in ME had removed all the infringements.

 

[eye95]

I will ask you one more time, and only one more time.

Please correct the post so that words I did not write are not attributed to me.

There is no wiggle room in this request.

 

[Ghost1958]

I will ask you one more time, and only one more time.

Please correct the post so that words I did not write are not attributed to me.

There is no wiggle room in this request.

Can you read?

Look down to where it says the bill. I did as you asked but I'm getting close to undoing it if you don't back up, and letting you stew .

Get this straight my friend.. You don't impress me. I don't give the south end of a north bound rat how many timed you ask , demand or leave no "wiggle room ".

I did what you asked. Now I've pointed it specifically out where.

Now. Leave well enough alone and drop the attitude.

 

[eye95]

As I said, that was the last request. A different tactic is in order.

The quote box still does not properly reflect the words I wrote. This crosses I a line that who’s crossing I have never tolerated, and will not tolerate now.

On edit, corrected typo. Changed “I” to “a”. Corrected bad grammar, changed “that” to “whose crossing”

 

[Ghost1958]

As I said, that was the last request. A different tactic is in order.

The quote box still does not properly reflect the words I wrote. This crosses I line that I have never tolerated, and will not tolerate now.

I Plainly in two places have said its been edited . clearly pointing out its been edited .

This is done all the time on forums . without all the muss and fuss.

I've done what you requested . Twice. And now I've posted about doing what you requested ,twice.

You got your way. Thats it that's all.

Tactic away my friend .

 

[hammer6]

Yep. Because it was ratified by the states themselves. As a constitutional amendment would be.

Eye is speaking about an act of congress which does NOT bind the states.

i know bro.

 

[JTHunter2]

Ghost - every living thing, from an amoeba to humans, have the instinct (or "right") to defend themselves. The larger and more complex the organism, the larger and more complex the defenses. The Creator of Life, whatever you envision it to be, gave all organisms that right to preserve their existence and no "legal" law can take that from us. We can only surrender it to some "authority", usually under duress (force) at which point, is Life worth living any more?

 

[Ghost1958]

Ghost - every living thing, from an amoeba to humans, have the instinct (or "right") to defend themselves. The larger and more complex the organism, the larger and more complex the defenses. The Creator of Life, whatever you envision it to be, gave all organisms that right to preserve their existence and no "legal" law can take that from us. We can only surrender it to some "authority", usually under duress (force) at which point, is Life worth living any more?

Well said

 

[since9]

Here's a far less complicated and far more enforceable version which, amazingly, is already on the books:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

I very seriously doubt muddying up the waters with even more attempts at defining our Second Amendment or any part of our Constitution will ever do us any good. Such efforts, be they either for or against the Constitution, will invariably further obfuscate the Constitution itself.

I'm sorely tempted to start a, "JUST READ IT!" movement for everyone to read the Constitution as it is written. The more people memorize the Constitution as it is written, the less wool wayward members of Congress can pull over everyone's eyes.

 

[solus]

I will ask you one more time, and only one more time.

Please correct the post so that words I did not write are not attributed to me.

There is no wiggle room in this request.

So eye95, was a statutory or moral or ethical covenant broken.

Since ghost1958 followed accepted attribution protocol(s), I acquit ghost1958 in the court of public opinion of any wrong doing.

You may go now ghost1958 and I won’t charge you investigation fees!

[sidebar ~ eye95 when you pitch your petulant child, screaming life is unfair tantrum(s) would you be so kind as to video it and put it on youtube so we can decide if it is Emmy worthy ?]

 

[OC for ME]

...We can only surrender it to some "authority", usually under duress (force) at which point, is Life worth living any more?

There are other options if you are unwilling to work to regain that which the state has taken away...moving to a more individual liberty respecting country is just one option. Let us know which one of those individual liberty respecting countries you choose so that we can make similar travel arrangements.

 

[OC for ME]

Folks can read the same words and come to two different meanings of those words...liberals do this all the time. Heck, even SCOTUS refuses to "JUST READ IT."

 

[color of law]

The Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U. S. ____ (2016) held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.”

I have posted this case a number of times.

The legal definition of ARMS dating back to English law.
"ARMS". Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another.

 

[eye95]

Here's a far less complicated and far more enforceable version which, amazingly, is already on the books:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

I very seriously doubt muddying up the waters with even more attempts at defining our Second Amendment or any part of our Constitution will ever do us any good. Such efforts, be they either for or against the Constitution, will invariably further obfuscate the Constitution itself.

I'm sorely tempted to start a, "JUST READ IT!" movement for everyone to read the Constitution as it is written. The more people memorize the Constitution as it is written, the less wool wayward members of Congress can pull over everyone's eyes.

Unfortunately, having those words already present in supreme law of the land didn’t do the trick. And now we have a patchwork of laws across the United States, turning us into criminals merely because we crossed some boundary only detectable on a map.

National preemption is a good idea for the same reason that State preemption is. It just stops the passing of infringements (which are being accepted by the courts—including Scalia—as “reasonable”) at a higher level than the current system of protecting the Right at local and State levels, which creates the patchwork.

Furthermore, there would be one law that the courts would have to look at as possibly infringing.

Furthermore, part deux, this preemption carries penalties for governmental entities that infringe. It is no good to say, “You can’t do this,” unless you add, “or we will do that”.

Do you have an alternate proposal for a federal law that defines specific infringements and threatens a penalty for enacting them? The 2A is the prohibition. A federal law puts teeth in that prohibition.

 

[OC for ME]

National preemption is not a good idea. The 2A is pretty much all we need. There already exists penalties, mostly civil, but at times criminal. Terry v. Ohio and QI makes a redress from a violation of our 2A by a state actor nearly impossible, but a redress does exist.

If a cop kicks you in the head without just cause there are criminal penalties for that act...yeah, I know, cops will not be held to any meaningful account for kicking you in the head without just cause cuz a court likely has not ruled that you have a clearly established right to not kicked in the head.

The 2A enjoins the feds and the several states from enacting prior restraints on our 2A guarantee...this should be good enough.

 

[eye95]

There is no penalty for States passing laws that violate the 2A. States have passed hundreds of laws that violate the 2A. The best we can hope for is that courts strike them down. Even when they do (They don’t always), our Rights have been infringed until the law is struck down.

Some form of National Preemption can put teeth in the 2A. I am sorry that you don’t see the need for those teeth. I do.