ENOUGH On The 2nd Amendment Bull****
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2020-01-21 12:10 by Karl Denninger
in 2ndAmendment , 822 references Ignore this thread
ENOUGH On The 2nd Amendment Bull****
[Comments enabled]

I've had it with the left -- and about half the right.

Rights are negative obligations against the government and other citizens -- always.

Rights are never positive obligations; they cannot be.

For example, you have the right to free speech.  It is often said that such a right is not "absolute"; that is, you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

That's a ******ned lie.

You must-certainly can yell "Fire!"

However, if there is no fire, the consequences that rise from that speech are on you.

To say that you cannot in fact yell "Fire!" and that government, or some person has the right to prevent you from yelling "Fire!" is to claim that the government can force you to wear a ball gag in your mouth as a predicate on entry into any theater and that the government can compel you to prove you have one on you and in use before entry, along with arresting you should you remove it while inside.

This is outrageously absurd.

Likewise, the 2nd Amendment says you have the right to keep and bear arms.  It doesn't say "except when the government doesn't like it", it doesn't say "you must prove you don't have one by search (whether magnetic, physical or otherwise)" and it does not say "except if you're someone that has in the past done a bad thing."

You have the right, therefore, to bear (have on your person) a rifle or pistol at all times.

Now this does not mean that if you use said device in an unlawful manner -- that is, you, brandish or discharge it, committing assault or worse, you are not liable for the consequence of doing so.  You most-certainly are.

Further, the much-vaunted 14th Amendment which is what prohibits States from passing laws that discriminate in voting on the basis of sex or race, which the "progressive left" loves, also prohibits States and localities from infringing on the 1st or 2nd Amendments or, for that matter, anything else in the Bill of Rights.  That's what "incorporation" IS; it prohibits anything declared in the Constitution from being tampered with by State and local governments.  This should have been obvious in the original Constitution but post the Civil War it was being routinely ignored by the States.

Note that the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, roughly three years after the Civil War ended.

There is a second false statement which is that the Supreme Court decides that what is Constitutional or not in the context of individual rights.  THIS IS A ******NED LIE AND ANYONE WHO HOLDS THAT FORTH DESERVES TO BE ARRESTED AND TRIED FOR SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY IF NOT ACTUAL TREASON.

The reason for this is clear: One cannot acquire jurisdiction over that which one never had.

Most of the Bill of Rights deals with declaring rights that pre-exist government.  All government.   Not just the United States and its government but all governments throughout the time of Man on this rock.  A government can disrespect a right but it cannot grant it because to grant something you must first have it.

The First Amendment is a declaration of pre-existing rights -- to speak, to gather for peaceful purpose (such as debate, demonstration and similar) and to worship (or not) as one chooses.  No government can grant that as a privilege because it never had any of that to begin with.

The Second Amendment is a declaration of the pre-existing right to self-defense of one's life and those around you who you happen to choose to defend against any and all who would take said life from either you or they through force.  No government can grant that as a privilege because the government did not give you the right to defend life itself; you were endowed with that by the virtue of your humanity.  One can only forfeit same in a lawful system by committing one or more acts of equal gravity to your own self-defense, which must be proved.

The Fourth Amendment is a declaration that once you acquire something through lawful means it is yours on an exclusive basis.  That is, the government cannot rifle through it at whim.  Your right to exclusive possession and privacy of same is absolute with one exception: After a showing of probable cause that it is the instrumentality of an offense against a valid law.

The Fifth Amendment is a declaration that one has the absolute right to shut the **** up.  Government cannot compel you to speak even if doing so would incriminate you.  

And so on.

The Supreme Court is constituted by the Constitution itself.  It is thus limited to reviewing that which is not a declaration of a right that existed before the Constitution.

One cannot acquire a right to do a thing that one never had except by voluntary personal assignment from the party that has it, and in order to be voluntary the assignment cannot be coerced.

As such all firearm laws bearing on the personal possession (keep) or wearing (bear) of personal arms are void.  They're not subject to review by the Supreme Court they are void as if never passed as no court has the right to review them; they never did and can't acquire that capacity.

That doesn't mean the government won't arrest (or shoot) you for violating their void laws.  They will and they do -- regularly.  However, all such acts are those of tyrants, not legitimate government.  Period.  This is basic logic and no amount of screaming, crying or bull**** will ever change it.

Similarly a law passed to require you to wear a ball gag before going into a theater is void.  It is not subject to review by the Supreme Court because the government never had the capacity to interfere with your ability to speak in the first place.  Any entity trying to enforce same may thus be lawfully resisted with any amount of force required to do so.

It is not, however, unconstitutional to pass a law which states that should one draw a weapon and commit an act of assault or reckless endangerment with it (e.g. "brandishing") one can be punished at law, including by a term in prison.  Nor is it unconstitutional to pass a law criminalizing yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no fire.

Note the distinction; the line between that protected as pre-existing rights and not is at the point of an action which exposes others to actual harm.  The mere fear that one might unholster a weapon, or yell "Fire!" in the theater does not and cannot trump natural rights.  Ever.

The Sheriffs who spoke on camera yesterday have this exactly correct.  There is a hierarchy of law.  No organ of law may review that which extends above its own creation.  The Supreme Court may not review natural laws because they existed before the Court did.  A State Court may not review Federal legislation because the Federal Government existed before the State did and in fact chartered said State.  The exception is where an entity grants, through entirely consensual process (which it can also revoke) said right of review.  In other words The Federal Government can grant to a State Court the right to hear a federal matter -- but absent such a grant said right does not exist.

County courts (and Sheriffs) often have the explicit right to execute and prosecute under State laws.  But that's a grant of power from the State -- which it can also revoke.

However, no State government can pass a law constraining the 2nd Amendment nor can the Federal Government empower a State to do so because the Federal Government never had the right in the first place.

One cannot delegate that which one does not possess.


PS: Don't start on Trump being a "defender" of the 2nd Amendment.  He is not, nor does he have any respect for natural rights.  Zero.  He as much a tyrant in that regard as was Barry Soetero.

View with responses (opens new window)