Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SIG220 on March 16, 2008, 08:15:50 PM
-
_____________________________ _________________
Who will prevail in this epic battle over the rights of United States citizens???
See:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,338282,00.html
_____________________________ _________________
-
I'm excited.
-
I thought this was already decided under the Clinton administration that the second amendment applied to State National Guards.
-
This is important stuff. I hope the Supreme court does not remand back to a lower court.
-
Could go either way. Kennedy is the swing vote. I'm betting it'll be a 5-4 split but I don't know which way, it's too close to call with at least 4 judges that will not accept the plain language of the 2nd for what it is. I'm sure the amicus briefs, excellent though they are and loaded with historical fact as they are, will not sway the liberal end of the bench.
It rides on Kennedy.
-
Is it possible the SC will look view DC as being excluded in some way or is this going to be a blanket ruling for all of the US?
The city’s second argument is that the Second Amendment does not apply to District-specific legislation. It is a curious argument, at least politically, for a government keen on seeking equal representation in Congress.
“The Framers created a federal enclave to ensure federal protection of federal interests. They could not have intended the Second Amendment to prevent Congress from establishing such gun-control measures as it deemed necessary to protect itself, the president and this court.”
-
This is important stuff. I hope the Supreme court does not remand back to a lower court.
If so, doesn't this become a Pro-2nd amendment ruling then as per the appeals court already ruling against the ban?
-
Nuke, read this for a good understanding of the flaws in all the arguments. ALL the arguments on both sides.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/wm1851.cfm
In addition to its main argument, D.C. defends its statutes on two alternative and independent grounds. First, the city argues that the Second Amendment's purpose is to protect the states from the federal government so that it has no application in a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. This argument assumes that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment really means "the state governments," which is both implausible and bereft of historical support.
It's highly unlikely that the SC will accept the idea that the 2nd has no application in a federal enclave like the District of Columbia. It's pretty obvious that that would open the door to the other amendments having no application in DC. No free speech for DC residents? Nah, the SC won't open that door and it was pretty stupid of DC to even try to play that card IMO.
-
BTW, they may hear the case this week but a decision in the case is not expected until June.
-
I thought this was already decided under the Clinton administration that the second amendment applied to State National Guards.
Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution. The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.
_____________________________ _________
-
Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution. The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.
_____________________________ _________
thing I'd like to know is how many of them are actually consitutional scholars as opposed to glorified ambulance chasers handed a judgeship
-
In its pre-argument briefs to the Supreme Court the parties to this case seem to have been writing to convince today’s nine foremost grammarians or historians. Much of the presentations to the Supreme Court focus on the grammatical meaning of the 27-word amendment.
The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.
Heller contends the handgun is necessary to defend himself at his home. The city’s law, on the books for more than three decades and one of the most stringent in the country, was passed to prevent violent and accidental gun violence. It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful.
What about non-violent gun violence? No one cares about that? What about the effects that non-violent gun violence has on our children?
-
Only the Supreme Court can interpret the United States Constitution. The views of President Clinton were irrelevant.
_____________________________ _________
It was a supreme court judge that ruled that. I'm not making this stuff up. Surely someone else here remembers it.
-
I don't remember that and I doubt it. Heller is the first time the SC has directly addressed the 2nd since Miller.
As for "It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful."
Successful? :lol
On July 11, 2006, Metropolitan Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey declared a crime emergency in the city in response to a rising homicide rate (the city had logged 13 murders since July 1, most notably the killing of a prominent British political activist in Georgetown). The declaration, which allows for more flexible and increased policing in high-crime neighborhoods, has been extended indefinitely beyond its original 30-day period.[18] The declaration also set an earlier, 10 p.m. curfew for youths.[19] From July, when the declaration was made, to October, violent crime rates fell by 18%.[19] The 90-day emergency bill expired in October, with the youth curfew reverting to 11 p.m. On October 18, 2006, the D.C. Council passed a revised crime bill that provided funds for police overtime and to implement a youth development strategy.[20]
-
I don't remember that and I doubt it. Heller is the first time the SC has directly addressed the 2nd since Miller.
As for "It’s a law the city and its supporters say is necessary and successful."
Successful? :lol
Yeah successful here's the same wiki could you at least put your source when you cut and paste.
"Since 1993, crime rates in Washington dropped consistently for over ten years. Along with this trend, gentrification has occurred in many neighborhoods across the District, including Adams Morgan, Logan Circle, Columbia Heights, and the East End of Downtown (Chinatown) and is trending eastward. In the past ten years, the number of homicides has been halved—from 399 in 1994 to 195 in 2005. It is believed by many that the gentrification of these neighborhoods was spurred in part by the extension of Metrorail's Green Line to the Shaw, U Street, Columbia Heights, and Petworth neighborhoods during the late 1990s. The revitalization efforts began first in the Adams Morgan and Logan Circle areas and more recently in Columbia Heights.
In 2005, gentrification began to reach Shaw, Columbia Heights, Le Droit Park, Petworth, Bloomingdale, Eckington, and Trinidad. The transformation of the East End of Downtown/Chinatown into clean, safe areas was aided by the construction of the MCI Center, now Verizon Center, which opened in 1997, and the new Washington Convention Center that opened in 2004 at Mount Vernon Square. As a result, hundreds of brand-new condominiums and apartments were constructed, and many new upscale restaurants, bars, shops, theaters, museums, galleries, and other attractions opened. Prior to around 2000, this was an area of local small businesses, both upscale (including Woodward and Lothrop) and downscale (like the original Sunny's Surplus). Local business in the neighborhood has been replaced by national chain retailers. As a result of gentrification, as well as broader economic forces, home and condo values in Washington, D.C., have skyrocketed. The same is true in nearby Baltimore."
-
bingie.. people will live anywhere and real estate salesmen will say anything..
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
At 44 murders per 100,000... DC is right at the top
it only looks good when you compare it to new orleans and... it only looks "normal" when you compare it to cities with a million or more population..
By contrast.. the rate for all of America is 5.6
I don't think that using the "gun control makes us safer" arguement and then using DC as an example of socialist paradise is gonna play to well.
lazs
-
_____________________________ ________________
The ban on handguns in Washington DC was enacted back in 1976. For many years after that ban went into effect, crime dramatically rose in Washington DC.
If you want to view the year by year data for murders in Washington DC from 1960 forward, you can view a chart with this data online here:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
If you look closely at the data, you will see that it peaked in 1993, which is the same year that overall US violent crimes peaked. Since that time, the United States has had a dramatic drop in the rate of all violent crimes, including murders.
Just look at this chart from the US Department of Justice, showing the National overall violent crime rate trend:
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif)
And if you compare the Washington DC data, you will see that it simply follows this national trend. It has absolutely nothing to do with any effect from any gun laws.
_____________________________ _______________
-
______________________________________________
Who will prevail in this epic battle over the rights of United States citizens???
It`s a toss up. It`s a good thing on one hand........but could go very wrong on the other.
At any rate it will be most telling.
The agitator at the center of this case is Dick Heller, a police officer for the federal government who in his job patrolling federal buildings carries a handgun. But D.C. law prohibits him and nearly every other resident from registering a handgun for personal use.
That short statement says a lot in itself and sums it up pretty well if you consider it.
Government..guns OK.
Individual......guns not needed.
There is not but one reason a government does not wish it`s people to be armed.
-
thing I'd like to know is how many of them are actually consitutional scholars as opposed to glorified ambulance chasers handed a judgeship
Hell, there's posters here that think they are. Many a president pretended to be. But if you want to prep yourself to place blame in case the SC doesn't rule the way you want, chew on this:
It's the people who allow the system to maintain status quo and who, though the years, supported political machines who's agendas may or may not have included their best interests at heart. It's the people who didn't bother understanding their own form of government, the history behind it or the ramifications of not being as active as they probably should have throughout their lives in influencing it. It's the people who don't bother really getting to know the candidates ... from their local dog catcher to the POTUS ... and who blindly follow their favorite flavor's smear campaign and end up with a president that barely understands how to form a sentence (and has the power to nominate for appointment SC judges to a congress that's elected on somewhat equal merit to him/her).
If you've lost faith in the SC then you've really got nowhere else to turn your blame and you might have to face reality. If the system isn't working for you and it's your own fault then it's just way too convenient to blame the system. Especially since it was designed, from the begining, to include you.
TY TYVM. :D
-
What about non-violent gun violence? No one cares about that? What about the effects that non-violent gun violence has on our children?
Non-gun violence is illegal. You don't have the right, via the Constitution or otherwise, to use any form of violence illegally. I'm pretty sure that's not on the SC docket. And you still can own a gun (disclaimer: local laws notwithstanding - local laws under dispute, if so). Reality check courtesy of "Citizens who recognize hyperbole when they see it."
-
bingie.. people will live anywhere and real estate salesmen will say anything..
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004902.html
At 44 murders per 100,000... DC is right at the top
it only looks good when you compare it to new orleans and... it only looks "normal" when you compare it to cities with a million or more population..
By contrast.. the rate for all of America is 5.6
I don't think that using the "gun control makes us safer" arguement and then using DC as an example of socialist paradise is gonna play to well.
lazs
So back when in 1991 it was by far the leader lazie hands down, murder capitol. now its near the top? Has it gotten better there or not? I don't live there but I would bet like any city some good spots some bad spots. On the whole murders have been cut in half I would say that's progress. Is it because of no handgun law? Or is it the way the populace views guns? I don't know. I wonder how many others have been prosecuted for having a handgun in DC.
-
_____________________________ ___________
Well, again, their improvement is roughly the same improvement that has been seen nation wide with the national average during the same time frame.
Here is another chart from the Department of Justice showing the trend of the National homicide rate:
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/totals.png)
The current homicide rate is only slightly worse than what the country had back in 1950, when gun laws were extremely lax nation-wide.
If all of the very many gun laws past since 1950 have had any effect on homicide, it has been quite minimal.
If you look at this chart, you would think that the United States went crazy back in the late 1960's, and did not begin to become sane again until the mid 1990's
_____________________________ ___________
-
The same is true of nations with draconian gun laws.
If you chart the gun homicides in England, you get the same result. The basic rate hasn't changed since they began keeping records despite ever more strict gun laws and the handgun ban.
Australia, same-same.
-
As for those that believe they are incapable of understanding the Constitution as written, well, what can you say?
The basic parts of it were written by men with less education than today's average college graduate. However, what those men may have lacked in formal education they more than made up for in character, common sense and a willingness to decide between right and wrong. Most of today's Americans seem lacking in all three of those.
I'm sure there are those that would wait for a Constitutional scholar to tell them if having the FBI arrest someone for making a political speech against a particular government policy would be unconstitutional.
I'm glad I'm not one of those.
-
As for those that believe they are incapable of understanding the Constitution as written, well, what can you say?
The basic parts of it were written by men with less education than today's average college graduate. However, what those men may have lacked in formal education they more than made up for in character, common sense and a willingness to decide between right and wrong. Most of today's Americans seem lacking in all three of those.
I'm sure there are those that would wait for a Constitutional scholar to tell them if having the FBI arrest someone for making a political speech against a particular government policy would be unconstitutional.
I'm glad I'm not one of those.
So just read what the simple men wrote. Do you think that they tricked you and that their words need interpretation. They said:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
They didn't say interpret this did they? Just read it as the simple founders wrote it. Don't you think that the founders wanted it read the way it is, without interpertation? Simply?
-
Indeed, please do read it as written.
As I have posted before, the militia clause is a dependent clause. This, I think, will be made so clear by the Heller ruling that even you will understand.
But don't trust me... just read the guys fought for and wrote the Constitution.
“They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights….the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government…”
-James Madison– The Papers of James Madison
“…Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
- James Madison– The Federalist, No. 46
“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
- Thomas Paine — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
“…who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country…? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
- George Mason
“The great object is, that every man be armed.”
–Thomas Paine
“Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
- Patrick Henry
“… of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms…. If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
- James Monroe
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” and
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
-Thomas Jefferson
“Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion…in private self-defense…”
-John Adams –A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA
“No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”
- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson –Commonplace Book 1774
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed….” -Noah Webster –An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution 1787
“The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil…I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government…”
-Thomas Jefferson — in a letter to James Madison, 1788
For a more modern re-hash for you, from the link I posted earlier in the thread:
The Second Amendment says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In United States v. Miller (1939), its only significant case interpreting the meaning of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court reviewed a federal statute prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered short-barreled shotguns. The Court's opinion, however, is ambiguous about the Amendment's meaning and scope. The crucial passage says:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a [short-barreled] shotgun at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
D.C.'s gun control statutes forbid almost all civilians to possess handguns and require other firearms to be stored unloaded and mechanically disabled. The question before the Court is whether these laws violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia but wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.
D.C.'s Argument in Favor of Upholding the Statutes
D.C.'s principal contention is that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia. Its only effect, then, is to stop Congress from preempting state militia laws that give individuals a right to keep and bear arms while serving in an organized state militia.2
D.C. argues that this conclusion is dictated by the language of the Second Amendment, which is filled with military terminology and refers expressly to the militia without any hint about private uses of firearms. D.C. reinforces its textual argument with historical materials showing (1) that the Amendment was adopted in response to fears that the new federal government might pursue tyrannical aims by disarming the state militias and (2) that there was no discussion of the use of arms for private purposes anywhere in the Amendment's legislative history.
This argument is untenable.
First, it implies that the Second Amendment substantially amended a provision of the Constitution (Article I, section 8, cl. 16) that gives Congress almost unfettered authority to regulate the militia. There is no historical evidence at all to support this conclusion.
Second, a right of the states to organize and arm their own militias as they see fit conflicts with another constitutional provision (Article I, section 10, cl. 3) that prohibits the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress. Once again, there is no evidence that the Second Amendment was meant to repeal this clause of the Constitution.
Third, the Supreme Court has consistently concluded that the federal government has extremely broad powers to preempt state militia laws and has never suggested that the Second Amendment has any relevance at all to the constitutionality of federal laws preempting state militia regulations.
-
yep bingie and 98% of the people who read that simple statement realize that the operative phrase is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" They also read that "people" means.. the people not the state.. it couldn't be any clearer.
Arlo.. I agree that we get the government that we ask for.. but.. at this point you can't get what you vote for.. the politicians will all say one thing when they are running and then do the reverse. How do we deal with that? with being sold down the river?
lazs
-
Bingie disagrees with TJ lol
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
-Thomas Jefferson –Commonplace Book 1774
-
Arlo.. I agree that we get the government that we ask for.. but.. at this point you can't get what you vote for.. the politicians will all say one thing when they are running and then do the reverse. How do we deal with that? with being sold down the river?
Not ready for the second armed revolution yet, Laz. I'm not seeing the crisis level some are. I can still buy some pretty kick arse guns. And we, as a people, can still vote out dead wood. And if the replacement is dead wood ... we can vote them out, too. Every two years can be the mother of all shakeups until the message is recieved. :D
-
arlo.. I am not for bloody revolution either.. not save for the most dire reasons since the revolution itself causes more grief than it solves in many cases and risks that a power grab by even worse people happen.
I am the optimist tho.. I feel that pendulums swing. I look forward to that.
That being said.. it is playing with fire.. no matter how you look at the ruling.. to tell 90 million gun owners.. about half the houses in America.. that they have no right to defend themselves with arms save by the grace of their benevolent leaders that year... it is playing with fire to tell 98% of the population that they can't read and understand what "the people" means.. that they do not have an individual right to keep and bear arms.
I do think that the decison will be a narrow one not making anyone happy but with both sides claiming a victory of sorts in the end.
If they do hear on the individual rights... not avoid it.. they will most likely say that it is an individual right but subject to "sensible" restrictions.. and we will be right back to where we started.
lazs
-
If they do hear on the individual rights... not avoid it.. they will most likely say that it is an individual right but subject to "sensible" restrictions.. and we will be right back to where we started.
lazs
I think that is a likely scenario. However, it will open the floodgates for more cases over what restrictions are sensible and which are not. In that event, we won't fare very well with either one of the two liberal Senators that will likely be the next to appoint SC judges. Win some, lose some. Had Gore or Kerry won, the bench would already be 2 Conservative, 6 Liberal and 1 Independent leaning Liberal.
-
If the SC reinterprets the Constitution incorrectly I vote "we the people" reinterpret the constitution in regards to the SC.
-
I agree.
-
That being said.. it is playing with fire.. no matter how you look at the ruling.. to tell 90 million gun owners.. about half the houses in America.. that they have no right to defend themselves with arms save by the grace of their benevolent leaders that year...
The population of the UK has already been told that by their government. They have no such right. And did they revolt?
As our country becomes more and more a nation of immigrants again, this will become much easier for the general population here to accept. For all of the immigrants will have no idea what the US Constitution really means. And they will have no family history of enjoying the benefits of the 2nd Amendment.
_____________________________ _______
-
The population of the UK has already been told that by their government. They have no such right. And did they revolt?
As our country becomes more and more a nation of immigrants again, this will become much easier for the general population here to accept. For all of the immigrants will have no idea what the US Constitution really means. And they will have no family history of enjoying the benefits of the 2nd Amendment.
_____________________________ _______
That is true. And for those that have family roots' back to the Revolution, more and more lose enough of their roots' that it isn't a big deal for them, either. Even among those that actually own firearms', it is not important to them as to whether or not they have things' like the 2nd. They just want to feel safe. And they believe that laws' can do that. Or that no matter what, they'll never lose their firearms, and that nobody in Gov't. won't try to take them away.
So no, you won't see droves of people out in the streets', protesting about losing the 2nd Amendment. No armed body of citizens' trying to overthrow their gov't. Why, you ask?
Because the majority of the population only see's gun owners as a special interest group, Like anybody else in the U.S. And not something they are willing to stick their necks out for. For any kind of insurrection to succeed, You would have to have the support of the majority of the populace for anything like that to succeed. And you wouldn't have it.
-
If the SC reinterprets the Constitution incorrectly I vote "we the people" reinterpret the constitution in regards to the SC.
Yeah cause mob rule is what the *Constitution* really meant when it outlined the vestment of authority to interpret (the correct spelling) the law in relation to said Constitution to the third branch of government called the Supreme Court.
Wait ... no ... you got that wrong. And I'm to have faith in *your* belief in what my Constitution means? :lol
-
So no, you won't see droves of people out in the streets', protesting about losing the 2nd Amendment.
I wouldn`t say "out in the streets" protesting and I`m not sure what people are like in your area in relation to this subject, but from my area people are very, very interested in this and watching it closely. If the second is tampered with, there will most definitely be repercussions from a mass amount of U.S. citizens in general. I believe the first step would be in the form of paper and phone calls, emails, etc. to lawmakers that are supposed to be doing their job to protect the constitution in the beginning. It most certainly wouldn`t be a quiet, accepted affair.From there..........who knows.
The U.S. is not the U.K. We are not as willing to live under socialism at this time.
-
well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
How more clear does this have to be?
If you don't want a gun, fine with me. but I'll be damned if anyone will tell me I can't have one!
The founding fathers have already debated this.......PERIOD! :salute
-
frode.. I see your point but I don't think it is fair to compare england to the current America.. not in any way.
the gun owners in england were, by the time of the ban.. pretty much a tiny little minority.. here it is half the homes or more (that will admit it) they also have a history of trusting their government to the point of blind obedience..
It is true that socialism and the iron grip of government here depend on new immigrants but.. Knowing the mexican ones that I know.. they would not ever give up their guns willingly.. mexicans are not afraid of guns sooooo... I am not sure what immigrants would be a ally to the gun grabbers.. a few metrosexual euros maybe.. that is about it.. the exBrits that I know here own guns.
lazs
-
Yeah cause mob rule is what the *Constitution* really meant when it outlined the vestment of authority to interpret (the correct spelling) the law in relation to said Constitution to the third branch of government called the Supreme Court.
Wait ... no ... you got that wrong. And I'm to have faith in *your* belief in what my Constitution means? :lol
Before there was a constitution there was "we the people". Should the Supreme Court violate that constitution "we the poeple" can rewrite it to ensure that a handful of people picked by politicians don't have the power to revise it to suit their own political agendas.
-
Oral arguments are up:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-290.pdf)
-
Yahoo has an article that indicates they feel the 2nd is safe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1
-
Yahoo has an article that indicates they feel the 2nd is safe.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_guns&printer=1
Read it, that is horse poop.
The 2nd does not hold out for any infringement or "reasonable" government restrictions.
-
Bodhi,
If you think there will be no regulations on weapons just on the basis of the 2nd, I think you will be disappointed.
If you think that items such as I have seen bandied about on the board here like jdam and cannon equipped weapons will be allowed under the 2nd I am positive you will be disappointed. Those will still be classified as destructive devices and highly regulated. I fully expect class 3 weapons to remain regulated in the manner that they are now. I also expect that restrictions on ownership of a weapon by felons will also remain.
What I do expect as a change will be a widening of the CCW options across the nation and a striking down of outright municipal bans. Just my "prediction" I suppose.
-
Surprised no one has posted these links yet............
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html
Although the statements may be a little premature!
No actual ruling has occurred at this point IIRC.
-
Should the Supreme Court violate that constitution ....
Once again ... proof you don't really understand anything about the constitution. Carry on. :aok :lol
-
Read it, that is horse poop.
The 2nd does not hold out for any infringement or "reasonable" government restrictions.
Opinion noted, counselor. :D
-
The left, will fight you tooth and nail, on the mysterious abortion rights that "exists "in the constitution. Lets see if they will go into that goodnight on this explicitly enumerated right to bare arms.
Court to rule in favor of gun rights.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8VG4TBG2&show_article=1
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F51ca64b6-f51d-11dc-a21b-000077b07658.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&_i_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.drudgereport.com%2F&nclick_check=1
-
Wonder what bingie and the 2% of Americans who agree with him think of this?
"A key justice, Anthony Kennedy, seemed to settle that question early on when he said the Second Amendment gives "a general right to bear arms." He is likely to be joined by Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — a majority of the nine-member court.
Gun rights proponents were encouraged.
"What I heard from the court was the view that the D.C. law, which prohibits good people from having a firearm ... to defend themselves against bad people is not reasonable and unconstitutional," National Rifle Association executive vice president Wayne LaPierre said after leaving the court."
-
bingie.. or this.... as it goes right to the "militia" and the "collective rights" (no rights) theory u and a few others hold..
"nside the court, at the end of a session extended long past the normal one hour, a majority of justices appeared ready to say that Americans have a "right to keep and bear arms" that goes beyond the amendment's reference to service in a militia."
lazs
-
Even Breyer sounds like he's on board.
Justice Stephen Breyer appeared reluctant to second-guess local officials.
Is it "unreasonable for a city with a very high crime rate ... to say no handguns here?" Breyer asked
Considering most decisions are 5-4, this may be a "landslide" at 6-3 if Breyer up holds the constitution.
-
this looks like good news for "the people" and something to build on.. it will probly forever shut up the socialist "collective rights" (no rights) people like bingie.
Bingie said it would all hinge on whatever the latest version of the militia was.. that was pretty much thrown out as silly the first hour.
lazs
-
After reading the transcript, I wouldn't count on Breyer to uphold the 2nd. He was intimating/saying that given the number of homicides it wasn't unreasonable for DC to ban handguns.
Souter, Breyer and Stevens and to a lesser extent Ginsberg were pretty heavily into the reasonable restriction aspect of the case.
My take is that its probably 8-1 in favor of the individual rights aspect and it's going to be very close on the reasonable restriction aspect.
I think we'll see a ruling affirming the individual right but with a statement to the effect that this is subject to reasonable governmental restiction like other rights, even the 1st Amendment (can't yell fire in a crowded theater... can't have a handgun IF)
At a minimum though, I think the individual right issue has finally, at long last been put to rest. Even those that can't understand the plain English of the amendment itself should be able to understand "it is an individual right" when this ruling comes down in June.
I think now the fight moves on to "reasonable restriction" for the next 100 years.
-
I think now the fight moves on to "reasonable restriction" for the next 100 years.
Well, if the key reason for having the 2nd Amendment is so that we can still raise a Militia, then it would make perfect "reasonable" sense for every citizen to own an AR-15
:D :D :D
-
.
-
sig.. it will be a cowardly...er.."narrow" decision but.. it will be something to build on once we get the silly "collective rights" thing out of the way...
You could prove that the ar15 for instance was not an unreasonable danger.. that restiricting it was swatting a knat with a sledgehammer.. or not.... the "no more machine guns" law.. it could be struck down by simply proving that it was unreasonable.. that no REAL danger from properly registered machine guns exists.
CCW.. prove they are a reasonable danger.. can't be done.
I think that it will mean that the cities and states that make up gun laws based on a feeling will have to show hard facts.
lazs
-
_____________________________ _________________
The most extremely IRONIC thing about yesterday's oral arguments at the United States Supreme Court were all of the many references made to the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which the US Constitution expanded on.
The English Bill of Rights states:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law"
Of course, the irony here is how badly the right to own firearms has eroded in the UK during these past 320 years. And even worse, the right of self-defense.
It was a bit odd that the English Bill of Rights said nothing about arming Catholics. But I guess that was due to the English Civil War. :eek: :eek:
_____________________________ _____________
-
The left, will fight you tooth and nail, on the mysterious abortion rights that "exists "in the constitution. Lets see if they will go into that goodnight on this "explicitly enumerated" right to bare arms.
Not really understanding your take on what "the left" does or doesn't do as compared to what the SC was designed to do but still not seeing constitutional "expertise" exhibited in the above sentence. The SC will be reviewing whether law, on any level, can effectively and legally impose civilian gun control, as related to the constitution of the United States - specifically the second amendment within the document. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferation activists can inspire or hire members on the hill that can figure out how to write up and propose an amendment to said constitution that really does explicity enumerate uncontrolled gun proliferation amongst the masses .... then it's left to the SC to provide the call ... as specifically enumerated in the constitution.
And sorry for the cryptic and unskilled use of the English language in pointing that out to everyone. Here's a translation for hyperconservatives:
Not pow'ful unnerstan'in' yer take on whut "th' lef'" does o' don't does as compared t'whut th' SC was designed t'do but still not seein' cornsteetooshunal "expertise" exhibited in th' above sentence. Th' SC will be reviewin' whether law, on enny level, kin efshreckively an' legally impose civilian gun corntrol, as related t'th' consteetooshun of th' United States - specifically th' second amendment wifin th' docoomnt. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferashun ackivists kin inspire o' hire members on th' hill thet kin figger out how t'write up an' propose an amendment t'said cornsteetooshun thet pow'ful does explicity inoomrate uncontrolled gun proliferashun amongst th' masses .... then it's lef' t'th' SC t'provide th' call ... as specifically inoomrated in th' consteetooshun.
:D
-
Well, if the key reason for having the 2nd Amendment is so that we can still raise a Militia, then it would make perfect "reasonable" sense for every citizen to own an AR-15
:D :D :D
I went so far as to suggest a full-blown M-16 and some of the most fervent uncontrolled gun proliferation activists had a cow. ;)
-
Not really understanding your take on what "the left" does or doesn't do as compared to what the SC was designed to do but still not seeing constitutional "expertise" exhibited in the above sentence. The SC will be reviewing whether law, on any level, can effectively and legally impose civilian gun control, as related to the constitution of the United States - specifically the second amendment within the document. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferation activists can inspire or hire members on the hill that can figure out how to write up and propose an amendment to said constitution that really does explicity enumerate uncontrolled gun proliferation amongst the masses .... then it's left to the SC to provide the call ... as specifically enumerated in the constitution.
And sorry for the cryptic and unskilled use of the English language in pointing that out to everyone. Here's a translation for hyperconservatives:
Not pow'ful unnerstan'in' yer take on whut "th' lef'" does o' don't does as compared t'whut th' SC was designed t'do but still not seein' cornsteetooshunal "expertise" exhibited in th' above sentence. Th' SC will be reviewin' whether law, on enny level, kin efshreckively an' legally impose civilian gun corntrol, as related t'th' consteetooshun of th' United States - specifically th' second amendment wifin th' docoomnt. Unless uncontrolled gun proliferashun ackivists kin inspire o' hire members on th' hill thet kin figger out how t'write up an' propose an amendment t'said cornsteetooshun thet pow'ful does explicity inoomrate uncontrolled gun proliferashun amongst th' masses .... then it's lef' t'th' SC t'provide th' call ... as specifically inoomrated in th' consteetooshun.
:D
Do you strive to be a DB or does it come naturally? The point I was making was that the left some how found a right to a medical procedure in the constitution, but where it explicitly states a right, to bear arms, that they cannot see.
-
Do you strive to be a DB or dose it come naturally? The point I was making was that the left some how found a right to a medical procedure in the constitution, but where it explicitly states a right, to bare arms, that they cannot see.
"Does" ... "bear" .... but don't stop on my account. :D
-
"Does" ... "bear" .... but don't stop on my account. :D
Why would I? Woo your so cleaver. HEHE http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blog+Police
-
Woo your so cleaver. HEHE http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Blog+Police
And "you're" .... but that's just my extra DB dose speaking ....
Anyway ... you were saying before the ADD kicked in? :)
-
I went so far as to suggest a full-blown M-16 and some of the most fervent uncontrolled gun proliferation activists had a cow. ;)
I hate it when people have a Cow:
(http://www.weirdasianews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/cow-stork.jpg)
-
Eat mor chikin! M-16s for everyone! (Cheaper than the average hundred year "global" war on terror bogged in Iraq). :D
-
Time to consider stopping feeding the troll.
-
Time to consider stopping feeding the troll.
Well posts like this certainly accomplish both advancing the argument and keeping things on track. What's your argument that keeps things on track, again? :D
-
As usual Arlo, this thread is bereft of anything substantial posted by you.
You sir are still just a troll.
-
arlo... there are plenty of citizens in the US who have legal m16's.. I would ask you to tell me what is so wrong with that. How many have been slaughtered?
Same for .50 caliber rifles. the point is that, with luck, the burden of proof will be on the silly liberals like yourself who sit with a superior grin and a fake jon stewart style (the jon stewart when his writers aren't on strike).. guys like you will have to PROVE that a ban is wothwhile.. that it is "reasonable" and not just some touchy feely idiot grinning sort of "well gaaaaaally... yuck yuck.. why not just pass out M16's then? yuck yuck"
This is of course.. how it should be.
lazs
-
not just some touchy feely idiot grinning sort of "well gaaaaaally... yuck yuck.. why not just pass out M16's then? yuck yuck"
lazs
I`m all for Arlo`s idea of passing out M16s...................as long as I can trade them for a more efficient weapon of my choice.
-
bingie must have gone fetal. His "it all hinges on what the meaning of militia is" and "the people" means "the state" ideas don't seem to resonate too well with 98% of "the people" and.. it seems.. the judges.
bingie seems to have left the room. Back to england no doubt.
lazs
-
Bingo never understood what it was about from the get-go.
Seems like it will clearly go down in the books as an individual right.
There'll be more cases after this one on the reasonable restriction part though. The irony on that aspect is Miller though. Years and years the lefties have pointed to Miller as a good ruling although it was cleary, deeply and seriously flawed. Nonetheless, it is precedent now. The beauty of that is that Miller supported having weapons suitable to military use. I doubt they'll get an more assault weapons bans through. :rofl
-
Seems like it will clearly go down in the books as an individual right.
Any links for that Toad?
-
i think the founding fathers were correct with the first ammendment...Why would anyone think they weren't ahead of their time with the second as welll?
-
Gonna probably hate myself for stepping in here, but it's where it gets confusing for me. Be clear I'm a gun owner, with a couple of AR-15s and a couple of AKs among the collection so I'm not just trying to raise a fuss.
I've always read the 2nd amendment in the context of the entire document. To me what it has always said, and this is trying to frame it within the time frame it was written, that the Feds can't tell the people they can't have personal weapons. It doesn't say that there can't be regulation on a State level. It refers to Militia in more then one place and makes it clear that the states are to regulate their own militias under standard guidelines set down by the Feds on the chance they need to be used to defend the country as a whole, but even that is on the OK of each state which provide the leadership for said state militia. It also says that the Feds would provide the arms if neccesary.
So that individual right to bear arms is also subject to the training and regulation of each state which each of us would be responsible to as gun owners. If it hits the fan, we're an armed force to be used under federal training guidelines implimented by each state and under the leadership of local officers.
The whole goal of the amendment, reading it from here, was to allow the citizens of each state some protection from the federal government implementing martial law over the country and taking control with a federal army.
So basically a state could impliment different gun laws, yet be responsible to provide it's own militia of armed citizens, trained by the state leaders under federal training standards.
None of that conflicts with any of the statements quoting founding fathers on people owning guns.
-
Gonna probably hate myself for stepping in here, but it's where it gets confusing for me. Be clear I'm a gun owner, with a couple of AR-15s and a couple of AKs among the collection so I'm not just trying to raise a fuss.
I've always read the 2nd amendment in the context of the entire document. To me what it has always said, and this is trying to frame it within the time frame it was written, that the Feds can't tell the people they can't have personal weapons. It doesn't say that there can't be regulation on a State level. It refers to Militia in more then one place and makes it clear that the states are to regulate their own militias under standard guidelines set down by the Feds on the chance they need to be used to defend the country as a whole, but even that is on the OK of each state which provide the leadership for said state militia. It also says that the Feds would provide the arms if neccesary.
So that individual right to bear arms is also subject to the training and regulation of each state which each of us would be responsible to as gun owners. If it hits the fan, we're an armed force to be used under federal training guidelines implimented by each state and under the leadership of local officers.
The whole goal of the amendment, reading it from here, was to allow the citizens of each state some protection from the federal government implementing martial law over the country and taking control with a federal army.
So basically a state could impliment different gun laws, yet be responsible to provide it's own militia of armed citizens, trained by the state leaders under federal training standards.
None of that conflicts with any of the statements quoting founding fathers on people owning guns.
Sensible moderate viewpoint without hyperbole. Thank you. :)
-
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always believed that the constitution regulated what the Federals AND the States could and couldn't do.
For example, it is not only upon the Federal government to not violate the the parts of the Bill of Rights, but the States as well. The States specifically have to abide by the rights set out, for example in the 4th amendment.
Because of this, it means that the state governments have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS TO RESTRICT GUNS WHATSOEVER.
-
Gonna probably hate myself for stepping in here, but it's where it gets confusing for me. Be clear I'm a gun owner, with a couple of AR-15s and a couple of AKs among the collection so I'm not just trying to raise a fuss.
I've always read the 2nd amendment in the context of the entire document. To me what it has always said, and this is trying to frame it within the time frame it was written, that the Feds can't tell the people they can't have personal weapons. It doesn't say that there can't be regulation on a State level. It refers to Militia in more then one place and makes it clear that the states are to regulate their own militias under standard guidelines set down by the Feds on the chance they need to be used to defend the country as a whole, but even that is on the OK of each state which provide the leadership for said state militia. It also says that the Feds would provide the arms if neccesary.
So that individual right to bear arms is also subject to the training and regulation of each state which each of us would be responsible to as gun owners. If it hits the fan, we're an armed force to be used under federal training guidelines implimented by each state and under the leadership of local officers.
The whole goal of the amendment, reading it from here, was to allow the citizens of each state some protection from the federal government implementing martial law over the country and taking control with a federal army.
So basically a state could impliment different gun laws, yet be responsible to provide it's own militia of armed citizens, trained by the state leaders under federal training standards.
None of that conflicts with any of the statements quoting founding fathers on people owning guns.
Wonderin if I've read some things into it that you haven't?
IMHO the Preamble lays out a considerable amount of information regarding the Amendments?
I find myself thinkin how can they BAN the so called assault weapons when those are the very weapons that the Militia requires?
In fact some hold the view that the rifles used by some of the colonials were far better and more accurate then the muskets the kings men mostly used?
So some of the colonials actually had weapons that were STATE of the Art at that time?
That being the case, how can you BAN current state of the art weapons, and still have an effective militia?
Doesn't make sense to pass such laws, and didn't make sense when they passed such laws, and will not make any sense should they pass more such laws.
I point out that Blackstone referred to the RIGHT of SELF DEFENSE as the 1st LAW of nature!
Also one of the Justice's referred to a portion of our history when people had weapons to defend themselves against attack of any sort.
Perhaps reading some of the words said thus far may help?
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/dc-v-heller-us-supreme-court-case-07.html
The above link is not the only one available either I'm sure others can post more.
IMHO it's pretty clear that the 2nd was intended as a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and I find much of what was recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, which BTW is a record of the formation of our government and the Bill of Rights, AGREES!
True one has to do some reading and thinking to find out such but IMHO it's well worth it.
-
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I always believed that the constitution regulated what the Federals AND the States could and couldn't do.
For example, it is not only upon the Federal government to not violate the the parts of the Bill of Rights, but the States as well. The States specifically have to abide by the rights set out, for example in the 4th amendment.
Because of this, it means that the state governments have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS TO RESTRICT GUNS WHATSOEVER.
It's all about that comma and how folks interpret it as well as what the founding fathers meant in their references to militias and their training and regulation.
As I said, I'm a gun owner and then some so I'm not anti-gun at all. But I'd also be lying if how I read the 2nd amendment told me it was just a blanket, everyone can have a gun without any kind of training or regulation. I don't see it saying that.
I get stuck on the reference to Militia which is spoken of specifically elsewhere in the constitution. I can't believe they just threw that word out there lightly.
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
-
Wonderin if I've read some things into it that you haven't?
IMHO the Preamble lays out a considerable amount of information regarding the Amendments?
I find myself thinkin how can they BAN the so called assault weapons when those are the very weapons that the Militia requires?
In fact some hold the view that the rifles used by some of the colonials were far better and more accurate then the muskets the kings men mostly used?
So some of the colonials actually had weapons that were STATE of the Art at that time?
That being the case, how can you BAN current state of the art weapons, and still have an effective militia?
Doesn't make sense to pass such laws, and didn't make sense when they passed such laws, and will not make any sense should they pass more such laws.
I point out that Blackstone referred to the RIGHT of SELF DEFENSE as the 1st LAW of nature!
Also one of the Justice's referred to a portion of our history when people had weapons to defend themselves against attack of any sort.
Perhaps reading some of the words said thus far may help?
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2008/03/dc-v-heller-us-supreme-court-case-07.html
The above link is not the only one available either I'm sure others can post more.
IMHO it's pretty clear that the 2nd was intended as a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and I find much of what was recorded in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, which BTW is a record of the formation of our government and the Bill of Rights, AGREES!
True one has to do some reading and thinking to find out such but IMHO it's well worth it.
I don't think you can ban them Wrag, in reference to their use by the 'militia". I think you could argue that it would allow you a whole lot more in terms of being part of that Militia. It's the old "F16 in the driveway" argument. As long as I'm willing to be subject to training and regulation, there's nothing stopping me from having one. Should it hit the fan, I'm responsible to be available for call up.
You can't keep me from having my AR-15s, but I have to be ready to use them beyond just plinking on the weekends and be subject to the military training neccesary to use them in that scenario. Maybe the gun training class i took when I was 13 is all that means. I don't know.
-
Any links for that Toad?
Nope, just a lot of reading. First of all, read the transcript of the oral argument, noting which justices asked which questions. For example Ginsburg focused on reasonable restrictions of the right to bear. I took that as a good sign when a liberal justice doesn't bother investigating the individual right but focuses on how she might legally restrict that right. I think Souter and Stevens may stick to the collective right but 7-2 suits me.
Then I read a lot a analysis of the arguments, including the other side like Brady. Seems to me the general opinion is that individual right will prevail. The antis are all focused on preserving restrictions.
In general I got the impression that individual right will prevail from the commentary on both sides.
-
Dan,
I have to disagree. CJ Roberts said "If it was limited to state militias, why would (the drafters) say 'the right of the people?' In other words, why wouldn't they say 'state militias have the right to keep arms'?"
Pretty favorable opinion by the Chief Justice there saying that it had nothing to do with a state militia. Then you have a liberal-leaning Justice, Kennedy, coming right out and saying the Second Amendment confers
“a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”
When you have the Chief Justice and the liberal swing-vote, things look pretty good for an individual right unrestricted by a subordinate clause.
Also, I'm sure you are aware of the Doctrine of Incorporation that stems from the 14th Amendment. At the heart of it, it focuses on
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
The basics are summed up here:
The "modern view," as reflected in cases such as Duncan vs Louisiana (1968) is that provisions of the Bill of Rights "fundamental to the American scheme of justice" (such as the right to trial by jury in a serious criminal case) were made applicable to the states by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment whereas other provisions (such as the right to a jury trial in a civil case involving more than $20) were not made applicable.
So now which of the first 10 Amendments have been incorporated by the 14th?
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection agains "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections.
Part of what will come next is an attempt to incorporate the 2nd once again. When it was rejected in 1876 the SC had never affirmed the 2nd as an individual right. If Heller accomplishes that, I think we'll see another attempt at incorporation with precedent being the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments. I think it would have a fairly good chance.
I think what will come first though is a series of cases that will wrangle over reasonable restrictions.
-
Nope, just a lot of reading. First of all, read the transcript of the oral argument, noting which justices asked which questions. For example Ginsburg focused on reasonable restrictions of the right to bear. I took that as a good sign when a liberal justice doesn't bother investigating the individual right but focuses on how she might legally restrict that right. I think Souter and Stevens may stick to the collective right but 7-2 suits me.
Then I read a lot a analysis of the arguments, including the other side like Brady. Seems to me the general opinion is that individual right will prevail. The antis are all focused on preserving restrictions.
In general I got the impression that individual right will prevail from the commentary on both sides.
Thanks for that answer Toad. :)
-
Dan,
I have to disagree. CJ Roberts said
Pretty favorable opinion by the Chief Justice there saying that it had nothing to do with a state militia. Then you have a liberal-leaning Justice, Kennedy, coming right out and saying the Second Amendment confers
When you have the Chief Justice and the liberal swing-vote, things look pretty good for an individual right unrestricted by a subordinate clause.
Also, I'm sure you are aware of the Doctrine of Incorporation that stems from the 14th Amendment. At the heart of it, it focuses on
The basics are summed up here:
So now which of the first 10 Amendments have been incorporated by the 14th?
1st Amendment: Fully incorporated.
2nd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision on incorporation since 1876 (when it was rejected).
3rd Amendment: No Supreme Court decision; 2nd Circuit found to be incorporated.
4th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
5th Amendment: Incorporated except for clause guaranteeing criminal prosecution only on a grand jury indictment.
6th Amendment: Fully incorporated.
7th Amendment: Not incorporated.
8th Amendment: Incorporated with respect to the protection agains "cruel and unusual punishments," but no specific Supreme Court ruling on the incorporation of the "excessive fines" and "excessive bail" protections.
Part of what will come next is an attempt to incorporate the 2nd once again. When it was rejected in 1876 the SC had never affirmed the 2nd as an individual right. If Heller accomplishes that, I think we'll see another attempt at incorporation with precedent being the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Amendments. I think it would have a fairly good chance.
I think what will come first though is a series of cases that will wrangle over reasonable restrictions.
I don't know the answer Toad. I wish the framers had been more clear in how they worded it, and seperated talk of Militia from right to bear arms. I can't with certainty know for sure based on the wording.
As you say the court will deal with it. And right now it's a much more conservative court. But the fact that we can recognize it, also speaks to the politics of it. The court could and probably will in time swing the other way and the interpretation will be different again.
Again, I like to shoot and have a nice collection of weapons, but I can't look anyone in the eye and say with conviction that the 2nd amendment speaks specifically to that right to have them without some regulation.
Just my take, and I sure don't claim to be right, but I'd rather be honest about my questions about it. As we all know it's a real flashpoint debate. I appreciate that this one is civil :)
-
Does it not read ..."the right of the people"... and not militia whose right it is to bear arms.
-
The court could and probably will in time swing the other way and the interpretation will be different again.
Of course it will shift; it will shift in the next President's term when justices that are even more liberal will be appointed to replace retiring justices.
The fortunate thing for gun owners is precedence. AFAIK, the SC has never directly addressed the 2nd on the basis of individual right. Now they will and if it goes our way it will be a very difficult precedent to overturn. I think this especially since CJ Roberts & Kennedy have come out so definitively saying the militia has nothing to do with it.
In that vein, I think it's important to get some reasonable restriction cases on the docket as soon as Heller comes down in favor of an individual right. The more restrictions that we can strike down before the court changes the better off we are with precedent.
-
It's all about that comma and how folks interpret it as well as what the founding fathers meant in their references to militias and their training and regulation.
As I said, I'm a gun owner and then some so I'm not anti-gun at all. But I'd also be lying if how I read the 2nd amendment told me it was just a blanket, everyone can have a gun without any kind of training or regulation. I don't see it saying that.
I get stuck on the reference to Militia which is spoken of specifically elsewhere in the constitution. I can't believe they just threw that word out there lightly.
The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
I was talking about whether or not the states have the rights to limit which guns can and can't be owned.
-
What you're talking about is incorporation and unfortunately the 2nd isn't incorporated into the 14th's protections.... yet. :)
-
bingie must have gone fetal. His "it all hinges on what the meaning of militia is" and "the people" means "the state" ideas don't seem to resonate too well with 98% of "the people" and.. it seems.. the judges.
bingie seems to have left the room. Back to england no doubt.
lazs
Sorry I didn’t think you fellows missed me so much ;)
Well you must not of heard the same case I did. I listened to it three times, have read it at least twice and gone over the text liberally for a few hours with a few of my friends over some wine and cheese….. Hehe.
I’m with Iron no decision on individual or collective.
I don’t think it will be over turned. DC’s ban will stay.
I think the apart/trigger lock thing will go. Even though there are about to be finger print trigger locks and there are also digital lighted locks as well.
Toad you are still wrong Bubba! Militia was all over the case. DC allows the guns needed to “militia” so it’s not an infringement.
Sailor is right Gura is an idiot. Hahaha “Scalia.You want to say yes!” classic! He even concedes the restrictions. He also says for example that a safe is okay but a trigger lock isn’t. What a buffoon. Even if it does get ruled an individual right its going to be subject to whatever restrictions they, the government, would like as Bodhi pointed out.
Personally, I think Levy should have argued for Heller. LOL after, when the two sides at the mic for the media, you could just see the dejected look on Levy’s face [arrrggghh… my millions arrrgghh] poor fellow. In contrast the smug look on the mayors and Dellinger’s face, the look of victory.
Heck, Dellinger made a better case for Heller than Gura did.
Scalia says it himself “Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” however disingenuous he is being.
Ginsberg talks about “at the time” 1939 military sawed off shotguns were not military equipment. Same argument I made to you Lazie. On the same token this decision will be made as it applies at the time, 2008. Right? Well, all the judges all know the history of the militia up and too the present day. They know the militia is the NG. Why say anything, they know there is no way “the people” can defeat the government anymore. None of them expressed an interest in giving the people back machine guns so you can just count that out.
Is it an individual right to keep and bear arms that might be useful in militia service {collectively}, yes!
Roberts even touched on the restrictions and that they were allowable, no guns in the market place.
We will have to wait and see but if I had to venture a guess either way it wont be good for the conservative rightwing gun freak fanatics. :)
-
Dream on. I'll wager you now it's minimum 5-4 for individual right. It may even get to 7-2. You'll notice, since you've read the oral arguments three times, that even Ginsburg doesn't question on the individual right.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are givens. Kennedy tipped his hand with "“a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”
Name your stakes.
-
Dream on. I'll wager you now it's minimum 5-4 for individual right. It may even get to 7-2. You'll notice, since you've read the oral arguments three times, that even Ginsburg doesn't question on the individual right.
Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito are givens. Kennedy tipped his hand with "“a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.”
Name your stakes.
You are right here. It will be a 5-4 vote, with both the law thrown out as being excessive, and also with the individual right determination from the lower court upheld.
A fundamental right to own handguns exists in the USA:
(http://www.jaym.net/group2.jpg)
_____________________________ ____________
-
bingie... now you have morphed into "it is a right of the people collectively"??
What is a "collective right" you have never said.. please define.
Nope, your case for the militia is looking pretty sad. the operative phrase in the second is the "right of the people" not "the right of the state". I don't think even one justice is saying that the second depends on the meaning of the militia.
lazs
-
guppy.. which brings us to you... If you believe as you say.. or as I read you to say.. that we as individuals do not have any right to own firearms unless the state says we do and then only if we are trained in war.. and enlisted in whatever they call the militia...
But.. you also say that you have to read the second as it you feel it was intended.. that it should be read as it was written. and how it was intended at that time.
You would have to conclude that the founders meant that every able bodied mans right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed since, at the time, the "milita" was... every able bodied man. The only thing we would be arguing about was the fact that any defenition of "militia" that was different than the original would be...Unconstitutional... without changing the amendment.. you can't change the meaning of the amendment by changing the meaning of a word.
But..that is not what the second is about. If you look at the style of the constitution and the documents at the time.. it was quite common to put a preamble phrase in front of the operative one. a "reason" for the importance so to speak.. in no case was it ever the sole, the only reason for the operative phrase...
Why would the second be any different? Why interpret the constitution on meaning in every case but the second where.. you wish to make a modern meaning that did not exist at the time?
The justices and every worthwhile constitutional scholar agree that the second is a right "of the people" not the state.. the state is secondary.. the state has the right to have a militia but that militia is derived from an armed populace.. the people.. who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
even if you used the "reasonable man" argument.. A normal court practice then and now...
Would a reasonable man reading the second find that it meant that the people had no right to keep and bear arms? that it was a state right and not an individual one?
98% of "the people" say that is false.. 98% of "the people" think "the people" means them as an individual.. that it is an individual right.
It seems certain the court will affirm this. they have been wrong before tho.. if they do... you and bingie and 2% of the country will say it is a bad decision.. if they say it is not an individual right...
Well... the stakes are much higher aren't they? it is a direct thwarting of the will of the people and the thinking of the scholars of the day. not just a few but a landslide majority.
lazs
-
As always your problems are related to education.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmvw7N-Nn1U&NR=1
;)
-
guppy.. which brings us to you... If you believe as you say.. or as I read you to say.. that we as individuals do not have any right to own firearms unless the state says we do and then only if we are trained in war.. and enlisted in whatever they call the militia...
A skilled editor or proofreader not make do you, Jedi. :D
-
But I'd also be lying if how I read the 2nd amendment told me it was just a blanket, everyone can have a gun without any kind of training or regulation. I don't see it saying that.
It's pretty much right there. Fortunately, it appears a majority of Justices hold a different opinion and will clarify it once and for all.
-
What is a "collective right" you have never said.. please define.
lazs
Dec 31, 2007
Definition:rights which are held and exercised by all the people collectively, or by specific subsets of the people. They stand in contrast to individual rights which are held only by individuals.
I answered it 3 months ago please keep up lazie.
-
It's pretty much right there. Fortunately, it appears a majority of Justices hold a different opinion and will clarify it once and for all.
I sure hope you're right.
I'm afraid that they fear crashing all the current restrictions too much to rule so definitively though. I will be quite happy should they prove my fears unwarranted.
-
guppy.. which brings us to you... If you believe as you say.. or as I read you to say.. that we as individuals do not have any right to own firearms unless the state says we do and then only if we are trained in war.. and enlisted in whatever they call the militia...
But.. you also say that you have to read the second as it you feel it was intended.. that it should be read as it was written. and how it was intended at that time.
You would have to conclude that the founders meant that every able bodied mans right to keep and bear arms could not be infringed since, at the time, the "milita" was... every able bodied man. The only thing we would be arguing about was the fact that any defenition of "militia" that was different than the original would be...Unconstitutional... without changing the amendment.. you can't change the meaning of the amendment by changing the meaning of a word.
But..that is not what the second is about. If you look at the style of the constitution and the documents at the time.. it was quite common to put a preamble phrase in front of the operative one. a "reason" for the importance so to speak.. in no case was it ever the sole, the only reason for the operative phrase...
Why would the second be any different? Why interpret the constitution on meaning in every case but the second where.. you wish to make a modern meaning that did not exist at the time?
The justices and every worthwhile constitutional scholar agree that the second is a right "of the people" not the state.. the state is secondary.. the state has the right to have a militia but that militia is derived from an armed populace.. the people.. who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
even if you used the "reasonable man" argument.. A normal court practice then and now...
Would a reasonable man reading the second find that it meant that the people had no right to keep and bear arms? that it was a state right and not an individual one?
98% of "the people" say that is false.. 98% of "the people" think "the people" means them as an individual.. that it is an individual right.
It seems certain the court will affirm this. they have been wrong before tho.. if they do... you and bingie and 2% of the country will say it is a bad decision.. if they say it is not an individual right...
Well... the stakes are much higher aren't they? it is a direct thwarting of the will of the people and the thinking of the scholars of the day. not just a few but a landslide majority.
lazs
Clearly I'm not speaking clearly :)
How I read it, was that at the time it was written, the meaning was clear. It was expected that the people had arms, as they were the last line of defense. It seems to say that if they can't afford it, that the government should provide it. All of this stemmed from the people being the militia that could be called up by the Feds with the approval of each state and was trained by each state under guidlines provided by the feds.
So in the end each state could expect that those folks bearing arms were trained to use them by the leaders of the state militia and that they were available for use to protect the state or the country as needed.
So do I believe the government can take away the guns? No. Do I believe they have the right to make sure folks are trained to use them and that we're accountable to our state and potentially the federal government to be there if we're needed. Yes.
So I don't believe the 2nd is just a blanket guns for all amendment without any accountabilty.
-
The SC just went for State's Rights in the Medellin case too.
From Bloomberg:
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito joined Roberts's opinion. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote separately to say he agreed with the outcome, though not all of Roberts's reasoning.
Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. Breyer said the ruling means ``the nation may well break its word even though the president seeks to live up to that word and Congress has done nothing to suggest the contrary.''
-
guppy... well, now I am not sure what you are saying. It appears that you are saying (rightly) that the second presumed a right of the people that was not to be infringed.
That because of this right.. the states could draw from such armed individuals to form a militia.. that it was also up to the states to train said militias. or... "well regulated" well regulated could of course, mean no regulation at all.. certainly.. disarming the populace would not be regulating well.. nor even constitutional.
the operative clause of the second is still the right of the people.. the part of the militia is the right of the state and they can do as they please.. if they do not arm people or if they do not train them.. that is up to the state..but.. in no way does it allow them to infringe on the right of the people.
lazs
-
bingie... you said, in reply to "what is a collective right"?
"Definition:rights which are held and exercised by all the people collectively, or by specific subsets of the people. They stand in contrast to individual rights which are held only by individuals."
I can't imagine anyone seeing this as a right at all.. it defines "collective" but makes certain that no rights exist..
A "specific subset of the people" is not "the people".. just as white race being a subset of the people does not mean that only whites have citizens rights or that newspapers are a "subset" of the people mean that only they have the right to free speech..
slippery slope you are on their bingie..
What exactly is the "subset of the people" that you feel is "the people" in the second? It can't be the "militia" because the second does not say that the militia is the only reason for the right.. It does not say
"the militia being necessary for a free state, it is therefore the sole reason for the right of the collective right of the subset of the people to keep and bear arms."
Even if it had.. you would have to ask.. "who belonged to this subset "the militia" at the time?" Why.. that would be.. every able bodied man.. every individual.. or.. "the people" the same folk who were mentioned in the rest of the constitution.
In your country.. your right was conditional...it was always as the king deemed.
lazs
-
Just as I thought.
From: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=70FE1869-03B1-42F0-BA7C-DD8C0320416B
....Robert Levy of the Cato Institute agrees. The senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian think tank spent a lot of his own money and five years of legal plotting to make sure Heller -- the first Second Amendment case heard by the Supreme Court since 1939 -- made it to the high court. I talked to Levy March 20 by telephone from his home in Naples, Florida....
Q: What’s the next big Second Amendment issue you’d like to see the Supreme Court settle in a definitive way?
A: Assuming that we win this case, I think the next big one we’d like to see is what goes under the name of “the incorporation issue.” That is, whether the Second Amendment is “incorporated,” via the 14th Amendment, to apply to the states. You’re likely to see that kind of litigation in a place like Chicago or New York or somewhere where there is really some pretty onerous gun regulations, but it is in a state or local context, not a federal enclave like the District of Colombia.
I think I like Levy a lot!
-
Thanks guys, I had no idea that the constitution needed to be incorporated. Perhaps I was clinging onto my innocent thoughts that the laws applied to all of the government.
-
For such a Constitutional scholar you don't see to be very familiar with the 14th Amendment and the case law that has been built around it.
You can live in the real world or the world as you wish it was. Your call.