Re: Denied Illinois FOID card

More | Report Post

On 1/15/08, v wrote:
> What country do they hail from that they need interpreters to to interpret the English writen
> constitution of the United States of America???
> It wasen't writen in latin, if it were, we could probly put all this interpretation behind us.
> Now i know why i failed english so many times, i didn't have an interpreter. Damn!!!!!!

No its not you -- it is difficult in any language to write a document that will withstand all time.
When the Constitution was written it was written by representatives of the various states. They
realized that there was strength in union of the states but they also feared a centralized government.
The Constitution was written to achieve the strength of a union and the freedom of the individual states
to govern themselves and their own citizens.

The second Amendment was included to prevent the federal government from prohibiting the states from
maintaining armed and well regulated militias. In a kingdom, like England at that time, there was only
the right of the King to maintain an army. The "framers" of the Constitution did not want the federal
government to become a king with the exclusive right to maintain an armed militia. In effect, the 2nd
Amendment gave gun control to the individual states. Each state would have the right to determine how
it would allow its citizens to bear arms and the federal government was prohibited from interfering with
the state's right to do so. (Some states actually required gun ownership and others simply allowed or
encouraged it) The theory apparently was that each state would be like a separate finger on a hand,
capable of independent existence and movement but if some outside force threatened the union of states
they would all come together like a strong fist. The "framers" did not see a strong federal standing
army as a good idea.

Now, 250 years later there are automatic weapons capable of firing hundreds of rounds of ammunition in
seconds. There are firearms that the "framers" could not possibly have contemplated. However, in the
ongoing wisdom of the document they created, rather than the federal government stepping in and banning
all firearms nation wide, the 2nd Amendment still allows individual states to determine what
restrictions they want to place on their own citizens. Surface to air missiles fully automatic weapons
and other implements of mass destruction beyond the scope of a state militia (only the federal
government may declare war a state militia can not) are banned by the federal government but each state
is still free to allow weapons within the guidelines of maintaining a well regulated militia.

So here is where we are: The 2nd Amendment allows states the right to permit their citizens to possess
firearms but does not require that states to do so. The 2nd Amendment confers a right on states but
that right is not conferred on individual citizens. Under the 2nd Amendment it is up to the states how
they want to control firearms and the federal government can't interfere.

Here is the basic difference on how the Constitution is applied: The right of free speech is an
individual right guaranteed to all citizens by the first Amendment; In contrast, the 2nd Amendment is
a "state" right conferred on a state government but not on individual citizens.

Until the Supreme Court reads the 2nd Amendment the way you want them to, states have authority over gun
control within their borders. FOID is a lawful exercise of the power conferred on states by the
Constitution.