DoJ on Heller...

[Bingolong]

As I've said before, IMO this militia debate is a red herring.  Lazs is on the right track by bringing up "collective rights", that's what this boils down to.  Take guns out of the equation, think rights in general.  The right to free speech, is that dependent on belonging to any group?  The right to a fair trial, is that based on group membership? 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."  "self-evident", as in you'd have to be an idiot to not understand.  "All men", as in everyone, not some men, depending on what group they belong to.  "endowed by their Creator", as in God gave 'em to us.  "unalienable", as in they can't be taken away. "Among these", as in here's a couple examples, but there's more.

My opinion is that there are no such things as collective rights.  Groups don't have rights, individuals do.  Take guns out of the equation and the same argument stands.  Minority rights?  No such thing.  The minority has the same rights as the majority, not because they're the majority or a minority, but because they're individuals.  Gay rights?  Same argument.  Womens rights?  Same argument.  None of these "groups" have rights, the individuals that compromise said groups do.

if its a red herring why did the supreme court ask about it?  and laz is right it is about the two views.
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080311/OPINION/803110313/1004

its not about weather 1 single individual <heller> can have a gun as some would have you believe.

[moot]

n/t

[lazs2]

It is amusing tho to see that only liberal socialist democrats and people from other countries would like to see the second destroyed..

here.. 98% of "the people" believe the second is an individual right.

Might be the last straw if we were all told that the constitution just protected the government from us.

lazs

[bustr]

Laws pertaining to Militias were passed so governemnt could make a superior claim to the militia body over We the People. A good example was San Francisco in the 1850's when the people called out the Militia to police the city from a Barbary Coast gang that had taken over the local politics. The people forming as the Militia took over the city and hung the gang members. Seems the duely elected members of the city GOVERNMENT were on the gangs payroll.<------exactly why We the People are armed as a RIGHT.

All of those Militias eventually became cannon fodder in the 1860's.

The reference to the Militia in the 2nd was used as an example of "ONE" reason for a freely armed populance. It was a verbal common structure that all persons of the time could understand. It was not "THE" qualifier to owning arms. In that case the use of " the RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" is meaningless and would not have been identified if it was not a individualy protected right.

RIGHTS identified in the constitution are superior and INDIVIDUAL to the human being over any other construct mentioned. The powers of the government are granted as a privlage by We the People. You cannot qualify a human right identified by the constitution because then you are trying to convince your audience that the constitution is based on the RIGHTS of the government to dictate what privliages We the People shall enjoy under its RULE.

The Revolutionary War was fought for exactly the reason that We the People are the government, not the government is one step down from the almighty and We the People are SUBJECT to its whims.

Bing,

The constitution was not written as an either or proposition. Either every right identified and said to not be infrigable means the governemnt cannot infringe on it, or you are trying to sell this audience on the American Liberal\Progessive\Socialist idea of tossing out the constitution and changing the laws of the United States to be parallel to the Europeon Unions constitution.

Either the constitution means "the rights of the people shall not be infringed" or maybe a certain tree's roots have become thirsty again for the blood of patriots and tyrants.....................

[Toad]

Best amicus brief I have read so far in support of Heller. As far as I'm concerned, it essentially demolishes the DC position and the DOJ position. It is long but it is worth the trip if you really wish to understand the various arguments and their flaws. Yes, even Heller's position has some flaws.

Enjoy.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm

[lazs2]

He puts it better than I did but...

"All of this points to another fatal defect in D.C.'s interpretation of the Second Amendment. The Constitution allows Congress to exempt everyone from militia duties, as the Supreme Court has recognized. It would be absurd to think that Congress could abolish the right of "the people" to keep arms simply by abolishing the militia. Nor can the right to keep arms be limited to contexts in which its exercise contributes to the functioning of an organized militia that Congress is not even required to maintain."

but..  as toads link shows.. the brief goes on to give the best explanation of how a "well regulated militia" can be interpreted to make sense in what appears to be an amendment with one false statement (a well regulated militia being...) and one command that is absolute (the right of the people shall not....)

so read the brief..  well regulated does not mean over regulated it can even mean a lack of regulation (and should)

lazs

[AKIron]

I will be sorely disappointed if the SC does not rule the 2nd an individual right. If they do the correct thing here it will effectively erase decades of gun control laws. These gun control laws won't go away over night but they will be challenged. Some states like California may defy the SC ruling. We live in interesting times.

I still believe they will opt out of such a definitive ruling though.

[Bingolong]

there are still allowed arms of the militia a rifle or hunting gun so the right is not infringed. 
Now a forced gun lock restrict, that right? ehhh...

Damn pancakers   
 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120459428907209205.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"But nothing I have discovered or written supports an absolute right to possess the weapons of one's choice. The lower court's decision in this case -- the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals found the District's ban on concealable handguns in a densely populated area to be unconstitutional -- went overboard. Under any plausible standard of review, a legislature's choice to limit the citizenry to rifles, shotguns and other weapons less likely to augment urban violence need not, and should not, be viewed as an unconstitutional abridgment of the right of the people to keep or bear arms."


Edit:
"On a blog devoted to the D.C. gun case, Alan Gura, one of the attorneys representing plaintiff Dick Heller, seems surprised by Tribe's position:

This is quite a change from Prof. Tribe's position in May 2007. At that time, in correspondence with us, Tribe said he would consider playing a "more central role" in our case, with the aim of helping us appeal to justices he perceived to be centrist and left of center. It's difficult to see how his current position would accomplish that goal."   

http://reason.com/blog/show/125315.html

[lazs2]

bingie... you read what you want... tribe is an ultra liberal who also said in the same article you quoted..

"It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units. "

You are quoting a guy who believes the exact reverse of what you do.. that the "collective right" thing is bogus.

That it is an individual right.. he only states that he thinks that some regulation can happen.. that is not his call.

An individual right as tribe admits it is.. would mean that a ban on guns or, making them useless (apart and unloaded) would be an "infringement" by any standards.. even perhaps yours.

you and the other 2% of the population must be getting desperate when you quote someone who says that you are wrong.

lazs

[lazs2]

bingie.. but I am still awaiting your answer..  if the congress defined "militia" as only the palace guard or politicians bodyguards...

Would that then mean to you that no one could have guns except the bodyguards of the politicians?

Does "well regulated" ever mean very little or no regulation to you or does it always mean as much regulation as possible?

How is it "well regulated" in reference to the right of a people to take away that right entirely?  that would mean over regulated or badly regulated.

lazs

[Bingolong]

bingie... you read what you want... tribe is an ultra liberal who also said in the same article you quoted..

"It is true that some liberal scholars like me, having studied the text and history closely, have concluded, against our political instincts, that the Second Amendment protects more than a collective right to own and use guns in the service of state militias and national guard units. "

You are quoting a guy who believes the exact reverse of what you do.. that the "collective right" thing is bogus.

That it is an individual right.. he only states that he thinks that some regulation can happen.. that is not his call.

An individual right as tribe admits it is.. would mean that a ban on guns or, making them useless (apart and unloaded) would be an "infringement" by any standards.. even perhaps yours.

you and the other 2% of the population must be getting desperate when you quote someone who says that you are wrong.

lazs

 I wasnt the one tootin the Tribe horn you and charon were

 Lazie you have no idea what I believe.

As far as this case and the subject militia, which is where I've tried to stay on it and not stray off, on your wild tangents.

Some regulation? hehe

Im not part of the 2 percent and you sure hang on to the un-scientific poll from the USA today like it was gold almost like you think because you read it on the internet its got to be  true lol.

 I just laugh at a few of you who said this case had nothing to do with the militia. you being one of those.
And toad swore upside down and backwards that it had nothing to do with the militia  again

[lazs2]

we still say that bingie.. you are the one who says it hinges on the militia and the "collective rights" (no rights) idea.

No poll has ever shown that anyone but you and a very small group believe that the second is about anything but the "people" about individual rights.  far cry from one little poll.

sooo..  in bingie land... if the congress decided that the militia was only the palace guard.. or abolished the militia entirely then there would be no second?   

As for tribe.. you are picking a poor friend as are we.   he does believe that it is an individual right.. so far as the case goes that is enough.   He does not believe as you do that the militia (whoever they are this year) is the only ones who can own firearms.

lazs

[Bingolong]

I am excited about it though should be really interesting.

Hey Lazie this guy does not own a gun and has no plans to own 1 but he still fights for it and pays to fight. it's Hellers council also I like the fact that he has planned this for 6 years kind blows toads "the case is about a man and his gun argument" out of the water.
Six years he and his cohorts have planned this and Shepard the case through to get to this point. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5W5UoXtY8Zr7I0mUpEonUhdDyRAD8VF3HR00

Lazie I dont have a dog in this race.
I just think it is interesting . and a Basic reading with out all your attempts at decifering the code and interpreting . Just read how the teacher taught you when you were little and go slow lazie from left to right.
 Oh and one more thing lazie I'll post any perspective  I please. I dont really care if you think it fits your vision of my personality or not

I will tell you this if the ruling does come out really bad and folks are giving say a certain date in the future to buy a hand gun and then no mas... you can bet I'll go buy a few. but i dont think anyhwere near that drastic will happen. Just a simple definition of the unorganized militia will do.

Edit:
As I said I not the one who jumped on the Tribe bandwagon the guys pretty flighty. changes his mind to much if ya ask me.

[Toad]

the fact that he has planned this for 6 years kind blows toads "the case is about a man and his gun argument" out of the water.

Obviously it's about a man and his gun. That's pretty much the same way anything gets to the SC. It's usually one individual against whatever.

The fact that they planned this case has nothing to do with the individual right aspect.

Every time you post you confirm that you really don't know what Heller v DC is about.

[Toad]

Bingo, why didn't YOU post this part of the Wiki article?

Critics of gun control legislation have made the point that although guns may be more easily obtained from the neighboring states of Virginia and Maryland, the fact that these states (despite the relative ease of obtaining a firearm) do not suffer from the same level of crime as the District of Columbia, leads to the conclusion that the mere availability of guns does not necessarily incite violent crime. Fairfax County, VA, which neighbors the District on the western shores of the Potomac, has nearly twice the population of the District but has nearly 1/20th the number of murders per capita (for 2005, Fairfax County had 20 murders out of a population of 1,041,200, versus 195 murders out of a population of 550,521 in the District).[14] [15] However, Fairfax County--which has the highest median household income in the United States[16]--has significantly different demographics from the District of Columbia.[17]

It all comes back to the same thing. Cain used a rock on Abel. It's not the rock, it's the intent of the person using it.