I am writing to inform you that the links I provided in Comment 78 (Dan Goodman Dec 22, 2009 7:41pm) no longer work. The new locations for them are:

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=331

____________

There is also the following which I think would be appropriate.

Comment on Petitioner’s Brief: McDonald v. City of Chicago

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=91&Itemid=126

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/136777

____________

I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:

    “In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16868

____

Right again, Clayton! It’s not unintelligent, it’s nuts!

You disagree with it as a policy, and I confess that I worry a bit about nuts with artillery. But since we do allow private citizens to own artillery (and only very occasionally does someone act stupidly with it), what makes a debate about this policy “nuts”? Or is anyone that disagrees with you on policy “nuts”?

The Soviet Union took that approach: political dissidents were mentally ill–or they wouldn’t be political dissidents.

I wrote a book about things being different in the near future. I wrote it as a lark, asking what would it take to have the nation overwhelmed and controlled by a rogue government. I wrote it in 1997 for fun. I got most of what it would take right. So far, the left has been following the script I thought up too closely for my comfort. I’m publishing the book now.

http://www.revoltthebook.com

I hope it stays a political thriller and not become a history text. But it could. Sadly, with these guys…it could.

Historically private citizens in the War of Independence did have ships and then armed them with cannon. Those are crew served ordinance. The normal was that if a person had money and ability they could own any type of armament.

The real restriction is simple liability and economics. It cost a lot to have artillery and tanks. Plus there are often a slew of local regulations that make it hard.

As long as ownership of these items are rare, the governments are not too concerned.

Any arms manufacturer that sells to the federal and states governments own the product before they are sold and that is private ownership.

Fighter jets and ships are under contract and are owned by the government. It is only when decomission they can get into private hands and that is very costly. Huge Navy ships cost a bundle to maintain and even as museums they have been hard to afford.

So the means of ownership are not prevented by law but by economics.

Right again, Clayton! It’s not unintelligent, it’s nuts!

No, I meant that as long as gun registration was not expensive or complicated, it does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. For example, if gun registration cost $50 a gun, that would certain infringe on the right, in the same way that requiring you to pay $50 before you could speak in public on political matters would be an infringement on freedom of speech. Gun registration while useless for preventing crimes other than gun control violations, does not intrinsically prevent you from owning a gun. It’s just not effective for solving actual crimes. Most people, even those supporting of moderate gun control, start to laugh when they find out about the Haynes decision, and how useless gun registration is.

Not always, but often enough to be worrisome. The bigger problem is that convicted felons, and others who may not lawfully own a gun, cannot be punished for failing to register. Requiring a person prohibited from gun ownership to register a gun is a Fifth Amendment violation, decided in U.S. v. Haynes (1968). (More details can be read here. Only those who can legally own a gun can be punished for failure to register.