2nd Amendment is Violated

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Maybe I should re-read The Federalist Essays to see if there was original intent to have loaded guns in motor vehicles.

Shoonra,
Such ignorance is simply inexcusable. The founding fathers made their intent VERY clear. To wit:

Thomas Jefferson: "The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.
Thomas Jefferson: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."

John Adams: "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." (A defense of the Constitution of the US)

George Mason: "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." (1787, Pamphlets on the Constitution of the US)

Noah Webster: "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops" (1787)

George Washington: "A free people ought to be armed." (Jan 14 1790, Boston Independent Chronicle.)

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (T. Jefferson papers, 334, C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

James Madison: "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." (Federalist Paper #46)

William Pitt: "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." (Nov. 18, 1783)

Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

Patrick Henry: "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."

St. George Tucker: “This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

Thomas Paine: "...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. ...Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

James Madison: "A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789.

Patrick Henry: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms." (Elliott, Debates at 185)

Alexander Hamilton: "...that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." (Federalist Paper #29)

Alexander Hamilton: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." (Federalist Paper #29)

Joseph Story: "The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)

President James Madison: "...to support the Constitution, which is the cement of the Union, as well in its limitations as in its authorities; to respect the rights and authorities reserved to the States and to the people as equally incorporated with and essential to the success of the general system;... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe;..." President James Madison, First Inaugural address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

William Rawle: "In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, in the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulation as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest." William Rawle, "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America" (1829)

Samual Adams: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." (Convention of the Commonwealth of Mass., 86-87)

Thomas Jefferson: "On every occasion...[of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (June 12 1823, Letter to William Johnson)

Joseph Story: "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.)

But even if this God-Given right wasn't protected by original intent, or the second amendment, it would still be protected by the ninth amendment.

Therefore, the "law" originally cited is most certainly unconstitutional. If not in its legal language ("person" being redefined elsewhere), then in its practical application (being enforced on Citizens).


Sincerely,
Zach Doty
www.FightingForLiberty.org

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by NarrowPathPilgrim

Shoonra,
Such ignorance is simply inexcusable. The founding fathers made their intent VERY clear. To wit:


But even if this God-Given right wasn't protected by original intent, or the second amendment, it would still be protected by the ninth amendment.

Therefore, the "law" originally cited is most certainly unconstitutional. If not in its legal language ("person" being redefined elsewhere), then in its practical application (being enforced on Citizens).


Sincerely,
Zach Doty
www.FightingForLiberty.org

I certainly agree. Thanks for your detailed response. This shows how the so-called law makers work against the people's interest in this day and age. This is what happens when the government treats the Constitution like a piece of toilet paper.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Sandman

Nonsense.....12031 continues....

(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Peace officers listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their
employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry
firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the
federal government who are carrying out official duties while in
California, or any person summoned by any of those officers to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is
actually engaged in assisting that officer. Any peace officer
described in this paragraph who has been honorably retired shall be
issued an identification certificate by the law enforcement agency
from which the officer has retired. The issuing agency may charge a
fee necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the agency
in issuing certificates pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph
(3).


There is more if you care to actually read the law. How could you possibly say there was no mention of this in the law? Did you even read this "specific section"?

First of all, you missed the point of the entire post. Did you care to actually read the first post and determine what the topic of the thread actually was? The topic did not actually have to do with whether or not peace officers could carry firearms. The topic was whether or not NON-peace officers could while traveling. The portion of the thread you are responding to is simply a sidebar.

Second, your post is appreciated, as I obviously missed that section of the code. However, simply posting it without sarcasm and your "higher then thou" tone would have been much more beneficial to me and the other members of the forum.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

I was doing some research to respond to Codee's latest post about traffic stops when I came across this section in the California Penal Code:

Person Carrying Firearms

12031.m. (a) (1) Every person who carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Is the second amendment dead?

Amendment II
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.

Sounds like the State government is infringing on my right to bear arms. How did this mess happen?

I got arrested for that once. I beat it with evidense suppresion.

The right to have a gun is tricky. I would love to research it with you Ready 2.

Please Email me at Codee@mail.com to start the project.

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by Codee

I got arrested for that once. I beat it with evidense suppresion.

The right to have a gun is tricky. I would love to research it with you Ready 2.

Please Email me at Codee@mail.com to start the project.

10-4 amigo. I just zapped you an email. Let's do it.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

First of all, you missed the point of the entire post. Did you care to actually read the first post and determine what the topic of the thread actually was? The topic did not actually have to do with whether or not peace officers could carry firearms. The topic was whether or not NON-peace officers could while traveling. The portion of the thread you are responding to is simply a sidebar.

Second, your post is appreciated, as I obviously missed that section of the code. However, simply posting it without sarcasm and your "higher then thou" tone would have been much more beneficial to me and the other members of the forum.

I think maybe he got mixed up with an earlier post of mine.

I was suggesting that if the people do not and did not have the right to posses a fire arm individually then how did we grant that right to the legislature who in turn could grant it to the police.

Delegated Powers. Keep it in mind.

[ThomPaine]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt
I was doing some research to respond to Codee's latest post about traffic stops when I came across this section in the California Penal Code:

Person Carrying Firearms

12031.m. (a) (1) Every person who carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Is the second amendment dead?

Amendment II
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.

Sounds like the State government is infringing on my right to bear arms. How did this mess happen?

It seems that there are two issues here:

The first is that a right must be granted by someone or something, whether that is nature, a government, etc. If that right is granted by a govt or a corporation, etc, it can be taken away by that same entity, with a few exceptions I am sure. Unalienable rights can NEVER be taken away. INALIENABLE rights can be given away by their owner, but are not supposed to be TAKEN, even though they are.

So IF you have an UNALIENABLE right to protect or defend yourself with a weapon, you should not be subject to any regulation or restriction as a free and sovereign flesh and blood man.

However, if the right to keep and bear arms is granted to a limited class of people or citizens then it can be regulated or taken away by that organisation. An example of this would be that you can carry a firearm in your car or home in GA but not in a bar or a stadium. That right/priveledge is granted to you and the grantor dictates how and when you can exercise it.

Because the LEOs dont know the law, along with many attys and judges, etc., how do you prove or demonstrate that a free sovereign human being has the UNALIENABLE right to carry a firearm for defence and is not subject to any regulation?

Secondly, the Bill of Rights, depending on who you wish to believe did not grant any rights to anyone, it only protected certain existing rights from being taken away by a third party. The question then becomes what classes of 'persons', citizens or human beings have what rights.

May be time for another tea party....

[Codee]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

Unalienable rights can NEVER be taken away.

Where did you come to understand this? In the constitution the right to liberty can be taken by a finding of one guilty of a crime. Any thoughts?

INALIENABLE rights can be given away by their owner, but are not supposed to be TAKEN, even though they are.

I am very currious where this definition came form.

Also I am currios as to any evidence you may have collected depicting the diffrece in the two words in case law or statute law (If there is any... Rights arn't mentioned ofter but USC 42 has some mentioned.)

So IF you have an UNALIENABLE right to protect or defend yourself with a weapon, you should not be subject to any regulation or restriction as a free and sovereign flesh and blood man.

I agree however what evidense is there that the right to defend oneself with any weapon exists as an unalienable right?

However, if the right to keep and bear arms is granted to a limited class of people or citizens then it can be regulated or taken away by that organisation. An example of this would be that you can carry a firearm in your car or home in GA but not in a bar or a stadium. That right/priveledge is granted to you and the grantor dictates how and when you can exercise it.

Why go to the corporation thing so quick. Nature could grant me hte ability to have a gun and I have an alienable right to do all which is not forbidden by statute and common law. Thus I had a right to a gun before the statute saying I did not. The right was not given to me by the government however if it be alienable then the government could legislatively alientate me from it. I am not say that the right is alienable... rather I am tryingto point out that an alienable right does not need to be granted by the government. That is a MYTH.

Because the LEOs dont know the law, along with many attys and judges, etc., how do you prove or demonstrate that a free sovereign human being has the UNALIENABLE right to carry a firearm for defence and is not subject to any regulation?

Maybe if you cannot prove it you do not know the law you speek of either. Just a thought. Why should the judge know your rights better then you can assert?

...................

[Sandman]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

I was doing some research to respond to Codee's latest post about traffic stops when I came across this section in the California Penal Code:

Person Carrying Firearms

12031.m. (a) (1) Every person who carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Is the second amendment dead?

Amendment II
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.

Sounds like the State government is infringing on my right to bear arms. How did this mess happen?

My apologies if I offended you with my previous response. Allow me to address, specifically, your initial post.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is dead. The Supreme Court , conveniently, has avoided addressing the issue, wither or not the 2nd Amendment applies to the Individual.

I could go on an on about who would benefit from a disarmed populous and anyone could speculate as to what their motives might be, but I imagine we would all have to dawn tin foil hats at some point...

Lets look at the bright side of 12031. As long as you are NOT in any public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of unincorporated territory, you can OPEN CARRY LOADED.

Yes, that means keep your pistol exposed, holstered on your hip and you are completely within the law. Did you miss the point about the ability to have your exposed pistol LOADED? Of course this all depends on where you are in the state. Also, there may be some local ordinances that ban open carry that you would want to stay on top of.

Additionally, if you are in a city or whatnot you can still open carry as long as the exposed gun is NOT loaded. Of course, there could still be local ordinances that forbid open carry regardless if they are loaded or not so people really need to research the areas they open carry within.

Would you be surprised if I told you it was legal to keep a loaded magazine/clip in your pocket? Yes, if you are within a city and its ok to open carry, just not loaded, you can keep a loaded magazine on you as long as it is NOT touching the gun in any manner.

12031.(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.


Here is a case some may find interesting...This guy beat the case when it was determined he was not in an incorporated area nor a prohibited area...he had a loaded gun....and some meth.

People v. Knight, 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 384 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/...es/c045858.pdf


Anyone living in an UNincorporated area can basically carry Open. Those of you in the hills are in good shape.

[ThomPaine]

Codee,

I am using Black's 6th for my definitions, plus some other research that seem to confirm these. I have not spent a lot of time digging into case law or statute law, but its on the list to do.

UNALIENABLE: Incapable of being aliened, sold or transferred.

INALIENABLE: not subject to alienation; those things which cannot be sold

ALIENABLE: to be the subject of alienation or transfer.

NOTE: Some Constitutional rights are alienable, ie right to counsel, a jury trial, not to incriminate oneself, etc., but these rights cannot be taken from you. You cant be forced to testify against your self or to give up the right to trial by jury, however you can choose to give these rights away.



The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable. Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.

By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect. People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).

Chancellor Kent (2 Kent, Comm. 1) defines the "absolute rights" of individuals as the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights have been justly considered and frequently declared by the people of this country to be natural, inherent, and inalienable, and it may be stated as a legal axiom [A principle that is not disputed; a maxim] that since the great laboring masses of our country have little or no property but their labor, and the free right to employ it to their own best interests and advantage, it must be considered that the constitutional inhibition against all invasion of property without due process of law was as fully intended to embrace and protect that property as any of the accumulations it may have gained. In re Jacobs (N. Y.) 33 Hun, 374, 378.

The concept of Man's rights being unalienable is based solely upon the belief in their Divine origin. Lacking this belief, there is no moral basis for any claim that they are unalienable or for any claim to the great benefits flowing from this concept. God-given rights are sometimes called Natural Rights--those possessed by Man under the Laws of Nature, meaning under the laws of God's creation and therefore by gift of God. Man has no power to alienate--to dispose of, by surrender, barter or gift--his God-given rights, according to the American philosophy. This is the meaning of "unalienable."

"If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renounciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave." - Samuel Adams

I will see if I can dig up some cases and statutes when I have some time. As far as proof goes, I was kind of thinking aloud and saying how do you show or prove that you have a right that was given by Nature or God? Do you have to prove it or disprove it? On whom is the burden of proof?

Thanks,

Thom