 |
| |
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Justice Taney ruled that the Missouri Comprimise was actually an unconstitutional law. The implication of such a ruling meant that slavery (which is mentioned on three seperate occasion in the Constitution) could not be stopped in ANY STATE. The right to own and trade slaves became fully protected against being outlawed. Any anti-slavery law according to this ruling would be illegal. This is why the decision had such a large effect, not because of the effects of ownership in interstate affairs.
Justice Taney's decision was eventually reversed after the civil war.
Birch's liability is not in the sale of the gun, but the selling of the gun with the intent to violate the law (UCC Article 2 sec 403, "Good Faith"). He was aware that the gun was being bought for illegal purposes and yet he sold it. The reciever the gun obviously it participating in illegal activity and HE KNOWS IT. This is why he has opted to remain anonymous.
As for whether the 2nd amendment really guarntee's individuals the right to purchase guns in an unrestricted manner, that is an issue that is up in the air. Obviously arms (arms meaning ANY kind of weapon) are going to be regulated. The need (and effectiveness) for a national militia has long since passed. There are no doubt a great many worthy views to be evaluated on this issue, but there is no real offical USSC answer to the question at this time.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
CygnusZ, Below is a brief history of Dred Scott.
I suppose, consistent with this case, the Supreme Court would similarly rule that Chicago cannot make ownership of guns illegal, particularly in a case where a person moves from, let us say, Wisconsin where ownership is legal, to Chicago where it is illegal. The facts are the "same" as in the Dred Scott case.
1799 Dred Scott is born in Virginia as a slave of the Peter Blow family. He spent his life as a slave, and never learned to read or write.
1803 United States purchases Louisiana from France, extending federal sovereignty to an ill-defined territory west of the Mississippi.
1804 United States takes formal possession of what is now Missouri.
1820 After fierce debate, Congress admits Missouri as a slave state. The question of Missouri statehood sparks widespread disagreement over the expansion of slavery. The resolution, eventually known as the Missouri Compromise, permits Missouri to enter as a slave state along with the free state of Maine, preserving a balance in the number of free and slave states. The Compromise also dictates that no territories above 36o 30' latitude can enter the union as slave states. Missouri itself is l ocated at the nexus of freedom and slavery. The neighboring state of Illinois had entered the union as a free state in 1819, while in subsequent years Congress admits Arkansas as a slave state and Iowa as a free state.
1830 The Blow family moves to St. Louis, part of the wholesale migration of people from the southern states of the eastern seaboard to the newer slave states of the Mississippi Valley. The Blows sell Scott to Dr. John Emerson, a military surgeo n stationed at Jefferson Barracks just south of St. Louis. Over the next twelve years Scott accompanies Emerson to posts in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, where Congress prohibited slavery under the rules of the Missouri Compromise. During this ti me, Scott marries Harriet Robinson, also a slave. The Scotts later have two children. The Scotts are not alone in this movement. Slaves are constantly on the move, either forced to accompany their masters or sold as part of the ever-widening domestic s lave trade. Slave states and free states, which had previously respected one another's laws on slavery, become increasingly hesitant to enforce those laws as the argument over the expansion of slavery becomes increasingly heated. Slaveholders express pa rticular opposition to legal precedents that permit slaves to demand their own freedom after being transported to places (whether other states or foreign countries) that prohibit slavery.
1842 The Scott family returns to St. Louis with Dr. Emerson and his wife Irene.
1843 John Emerson dies. Mrs. Emerson hires out Dred, Harriet, and their children to work for other families in St. Louis.
1846 Dred and Harriet Scott sue Mrs. Emerson for their freedom in the St. Louis Circuit Court.
1847 The Circuit Court rules in favor of Mrs. Emerson, dismissing the Scotts' case but allowing the Scotts to refile their suit.
1850 The jury in a second trial decides that the Scotts deserve to be free, based on their years of residence in the non-slave territories of Wisconsin and Illinois.
1852 Mrs. Emerson, not wanting to lose such valuable property, appeals the decision to the Missouri Supreme Court. Lawyers on both sides agree that from now on appeals will be based on Dred's case alone, with findings applied equally to Harriet. The state Supreme Court overrules the Circuit Court decision and returns Scott to slavery.
1853-54 Scott, supported by lawyers who opposed slavery, files suit in the U.S. Federal Court in St. Louis. The defendant in this case is Mrs. Emerson's brother, John Sanford, who has assumed responsibility for John Emerson's estate. As a New Yor k resident and technically beyond the jurisdiction of the state court, Scott's lawyers can only file a suit against Sanford in the federal judicial system. Again the court rules against Scott.
1856-1857 Scott and his lawyers appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. In Scott v. Sanford the Court states that Scott should remain a slave, that as a slave he is not a citizen of the U.S. and thus not eligible to bring suit in a federal court, and that as a slave he is personal property and thus has never been free.
The court further declares unconstitutional the provision in the Missouri Compromise that permitted Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories. In fact, the compromise is already under assault as a coalition of political leaders—some slaveholders, o thers westerners who resent the federal government's ability to dictate the terms of statehood—claim that territorial residents should be able to determine on what terms they enter the union. The decision in Scott v. Sanford greatly alarms the antislaver y movement and intensifies the growing division of opinion within the United State. The newly-formed Republican Party, which opposes the expansion of slavery, vigorously criticizes the decision and the court.
1857 Mrs. Emerson remarries. Since her new husband opposes slavery, she returns Dred Scott and his family to the Blow family. The Blows give the Scotts their freedom.
1858 Dred Scott dies of tuberculosis and is buried in St. Louis. He was buried in Wesleyan Cemetary at what is now the intersection of Grand and Laclede Avenues in St. Louis (now part of the campus of St. Louis University). In 1867, Wesleyan cemetary closed and the bodies were dis-interred and re-buried at other sites. Dred Scott's body was moved to an unmarked grave in Section 1, Lot No. 177, Calvary Cemetary, in north St. Louis County. In 1957 a marker was placed on Dred Scott's grave which reads:
"DRED SCOTT BORN ABOUT 1799 DIED SEPT. 17, 1858
DRED SCOTT SUBJECT OF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES IN 1857 WHICH DENIED CITIZENSHIP TO THE NEGRO, VOIDED THE MISSOURI COMPROMISE ACT, BECAME ONE OF THE EVENTS THAT RESULTED IN THE CIVIL WAR"
1860 Abraham Lincoln is elected president in a political contest dominated by the discussion of slavery. South Carolina secedes from the Union, and the Civil War begins.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CygnusZ
|
|
Uh, you realize that it is relatively routine to work with other police departments to bring in a suspect, right?
After all, he is an accomplice to a crime in Chicago. The suburban police can't legally refuse to bring him over for a fair trial.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:20
|
|
CygnusZ, I suspect you a right about crimes that are violations of state law. There, the act is criminal throughout the entire state. I suspect you incorrect about this matter, though, because it would not be a violation of any law in Oak Park.
In an analogous case, Franch recently prosecuted Yahoo for selling Nazi memorabilia on its Internet service in the United States. French citizens could access the US cite and see and even buy the memorabilia (read, guns).
The remedy, however, would be to fine or shut down Yahoo in the US. But I guarantee you, the US would not co-operate in any such French adventure because what Yahoo did was legal in the US where the act was committed.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20.
Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-07-2002 13:08
|