Our local school's take on the 2A

M

mikejonestkd

New member
My child is completing a unit on the founding of our country and the constitution and has been bringing quite a bit of handouts from the school on the constitution, and I thought I would share a bit of it with the members here.

In a packet titled " Ten Bold Statements " on the Bill of Rights there is question on the 2A:

A family that sam visits in Philadelphia has a collection of 37 antique rifles, 5 other rifles, 5 shotguns and 2 handguns. Their next door neighbor is afraid of guns and has reported them to the local police several times. Is it legal for this family to have guns?

My child's written response " Yes, as long as they are not criminals "

There was a space for more comments and my child had added to the above response after the class had discussed it with the teacher. The class/ teacher's opinion was " Yes, all americans can own a firearm if they are not violent felons, or a mental patient that is a danger to themseves or others "

I thought my child's response to be nice, and the class discussion to be a reassuring vote of confidence that our local school understands indvidual rights. We discussed the class lessons and I learned that none of the children or teachers involved took the ' militia only ' stance on the issue.

BTW, the discussions/ responses on the rest of the BOR were similar in intent to the above 2A responses/ discussions. I am glad to see that my tax dollars are going for decent education - at least in the 4th grade ...LOL
 
In a packet titled " Ten Bold Statements " on the Bill of Rights there is question on the 2A:

A family that sam visits in Philadelphia has a collection of 37 antique rifles, 5 other rifles, 5 shotguns and 2 handguns. Their next door neighbor is afraid of guns and has reported them to the local police several times. Is it legal for this family to have guns?
Click to expand...

If a man has guns, and his neighbors don't like it, and the local police are called, what does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment, which binds only the federal government?

Maybe they should look at the Pennsylvania Constitution to see if there is a constitutional right for a family in Pennsylvania to keep guns. Or they might address the federal protection of the RKBA which is regardless of the Second Amendment.

It sounds like they are teaching little kids that the USBOR is nationally binding, an extremist 14th "Amendment" view. It sounds like "Reconstruction 101" to me. Our tax dollars at work indeed.
 
If a man has guns, and his neighbors don't like it, and the local police are called, what does any of this have to do with the Second Amendment, which binds only the federal government?
Click to expand...
But the 14th makes the 2nd apply to the states. I don't see how this view is "extremist".

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
But the 14th makes the 2nd apply to the states. I don't see how this view is "extremist".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has held that the 14th only applies to other rights where not doing so would "shock the conscience", thereby creating the "selective incorporation" doctrine. If the court wants a right to apply, it finds the 14th applicable. If not, the court finds it doesn't.

The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the scope of the 14th.
 
The 2nd Amendment has never been incorporated into the scope of the 14th
Click to expand...

Yet. If there is a major victory in Heller, hopefully that will be the next step. :D

And the 14th is another case where judicial activism has skewed how it is interpreted ... there is nothing about "incorporation" in the 14th amendment any more than there is anything binding about militia membership in the 2nd amendment. The court made that up for their own purposes.

As to whether the 14th is a "legally" passed amendment ... another good question and interesting discussion. But it's been in force too long to go away now ... as has the "incorporation" argument.
 
Yeah, Judicial activism. Sure. :rolleyes:

How else is this supposed to be read?

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
Dont' get too hung up on the specific details; like the setting being in Philly, or that the local police were called....or read too much into the 14th.

Think big picture....these children are being taught that the 2A is an individual right.

And, to borrow a phrase from martha stewart " Its a good thing "
 
Would this sufficiently cover a Philadelphia families desire to possess guns in their dwelling...?

Pennsylvania Constitution -- Right to Bear Arms, Section 21.

"The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned".
 
due process of law
Click to expand...

This from this...

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...

The words ''due process of law'', in essence, are the the the key in the lock on the door to tyranny.

If I have to explain it then you wouldn't understand to begin with.

Simply put, ask someone about their experience after the due process of law has been forced on them after said (bad) law shouldn't exist in the first place.

equal protection of the laws
Click to expand...

You might also take note that the words ''equal prosecution'' are missing here...because, as you you may remember, some of us are more equal than others.
 
But the 14th makes the 2nd apply to the states. I don't see how this view is "extremist".
Click to expand...
The 14th does not make the 2nd apply to the States. Incorporation has yet to occur. The SCOTUS has ruled over and over, since the 14th came to be, that the 2nd limits only the federal government. I consider it extreme to view an amendment as having powers beyond its judicial history.


Think big picture....these children are being taught that the 2A is an individual right.
And, to borrow a phrase from martha stewart " Its a good thing "
Click to expand...
I am thinking big picture. My impression is that they are being taught that the Second Amendment binds the States, and that is not a good thing, it is a lie. The 2nd is not an "individual right", it is a limit on federal government.


HughDamnright as always you are DAMNWRONG.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Is it your assertion that the Second Amendment binds the States, that if a man in Pennsylvania has guns and his neighbors don't like it then that is a Second Amendment issue?
 
Uuuuuhhh guys, the Brethern are set to rule on this very issue in regards DC Council banning firearms in the home... Seems like this discussion will be solved one way or the other in June...

denny
 
The 14th does not make the 2nd apply to the States. Incorporation has yet to occur. The SCOTUS has ruled over and over, since the 14th came to be, that the 2nd limits only the federal government. I consider it extreme to view an amendment as having powers beyond its judicial history.
Click to expand...

Hugh ... I don't understand why you try to be a constitutional purist, and then give the courts a pass on mangling the 14th amendment.

There is nothing in the 14th about incorporation. That was a term made up by the court so they wouldn't be limited in their rulings. The 14th amendment makes the protection of all rights enumerated in the constitution apply to all citizens, and thus limits all states, counties, cities to honoring all the rights there honored -- including those in the 2nd amendment. The offensive thing is that we've let COTUS get away with their little games of "incorporation" for 100 years.

With any luck, Heller will correct this judicial activism as it relates to the 2nd amendment.

The 14th amendment was written for the PEOPLE. That's US. Why are you so adamant that we not be protected by it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top