Another facet to the RKBA:

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

There were demands concurrent with the adoption of the Constitution that a Bill of Rights be included. It has been appended as the first ten amendments.

Why? What purposes does the BoR serve? It's obvious that legislators will (or at least should) use it as a guide when writing laws. The courts will employ the BoR as a yardstick to judge both laws and those who violate them and to guide the enforcement of laws.

What else? The BoR serves as a means to tell when the government is acting tyrannically. A laymen can read the BoR and the news of his governments actions and judge for himself if tyranny has developed.

Comments?

[slackmaster]

1. It's all in the preamble to the Bill of Rights

The First 10 Amendments to the
Constitution as Ratified by the States
December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday
the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.:

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

[AtheistCrusader]

2. And further reflected in most of the many states constitutions throughout the union.

Washington State, ratified 1889:

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


Good call by the way, the preamble is like the 13th floor of a hotel.

[Glenn Vardy]

16. Ten individual rights?

And what the preamble DOESN'T say:
"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire that ten individual rights should be added."

[slackmaster]

18. A lot more than 10, and all are rights that were already generally recognized as valid and important

The Ninth is perhaps the most important clarification in any foundation document ever written:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. recc'd to zero

why am I not surprised.

[Hangingon]

4. I got it to +1 but it won't last long.

[iverglas]

5. I've pushed it to 3

I think that ordinary members of this website should have every opportunity and incentive to read the crap posted in this forum!

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Thanks...

...you must be a Newfie. ;)

There are three guys walking together, a Newfie, a Quebecer , and a Torontian. They come across a lantern and a genie pops out, "I will give you each one wish, that's three wishes."

So the Newfie says "I am a fisherman, my dad's a fisherman, and his dad was a fisherman, and my son will be one too. I want all the oceans full of fish" 'POOF' the oceans were full (of fish that is).

The Quebecer was amazed, he said "I want a wall around the province of Quebec, so nothing will get in." 'POOF' there was a wall around Quebec.

The guy from Toronto says "Tell me more about this wall."

The genie says "Well its about 150 feet high, 50 feet thick and nothing can get in or out."

So the Torontian says "Fill it up with water."

[Starboard Tack]

9. What the heck is a Torontian?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. Someone from Toronto? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

12. That would be a Torontonian

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. Oh well.

newfiejokes.net is not to be trusted. ;)

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. As Professor Levinson puts it:

If one does accept the plausibility of any of the arguments on behalf of a strong reading of the Second Amendment, but, nevertheless, rejects them in the name of social prudence and the present-day consequences produced by finicky adherence to earlier understandings, why do we not apply such consequentialist criteria to each and every part of the Bill of Rights? As Ronald Dworkin has argued, what it means to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. If protecting freedom of speech, the rights of criminal defendants, or any other part of the Bill of Rights were always (or even most of the time) costless to the society as a whole, it would truly be impossible to understand why they would be as controversial as they are. The very fact that there are often significant costs--criminals going free, oppressed groups having to hear viciously racist speech, and so on--helps to account for the observed fact that those who view themselves as defenders of the Bill of Rights are generally antagonistic to prudential arguments. Most often, one finds them embracing versions of textual, historical, or doctrinal argument that dismiss as almost crass and vulgar any insistence that times might have changed and made too "expensive" the continued adherence to a given view ... Yet one finds that the tables are strikingly turned when the Second Amendment comes into play. Here it is "conservatives" who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and "liberals" who argue for a notion of the "living constitution" and "changed circumstances" that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment.

The legislators use the BoR to write laws.
The courts use the BoR to judge if a law is constitutional.
The people use the BoR to decide when to replace a legislator/executive.

[SteveM]

8. There is an interesting twist on Levinson's characterization of "liberals:"

Levinson Referencing the Second:

"Here it is 'conservatives' who argue in effect that social costs are irrelevant and 'liberals' who argue for a notion of the 'living constitution' and 'changed circumstances' that would have the practical consequence of removing any real bite from the Second Amendment."

______________

Even here, some "liberals" junk the notion of a "living constitution" when they say that the only guns available were flint-locks. If they truly believed in the "living constitution," they would acknowledge that times have changed, and far more powerful, repeating arms have come alive, so to speak. Of course they won't, anymore than these "liberals" would accept the notion that freedom of assembly and speech is circumscribed by use of a wooden "press."

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Following up:

If the 2A is accepted completely in the context of 18th century pistols, is it acceptable to carry them without registration, license or permit in bars and courtrooms by any adult, open or concealed?

[SteveM]

14. Vermont seems to think so. nt

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. I believe...

...Vermont feels this way about all pistols.

[Glenn Vardy]

17. If?

If the Second Amendment WERE about "guns," the Federal Government would have the power in Article 1, Section 8. to declare that the militia shall be armed with feather dusters. If they did do that, you'd all be saying that it only applies to the National Guard, wouldn't you? Luckily, if the Federal Government DOES abuse it's powers the people of the States can keep their militia forces properly armed and disciplined and it can't be misconstrued by the Federal Government as an act of rebellion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

19. In fact...

...the 2A is about rights.

The feds can arm the NATIONAL Guard in any way they see fit as the Guard is funded mostly by the feds.
Some states do have State Guards but I don't know that they are chartered with defending the state from the feds.

What's the weather like on your planet?