Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on June 26, 2008, 08:33:46 AM
-
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/
OK, it's HELLER TIME!
The SCOTUSBLOG is up and open, opinions will start coming out right after 10 AM Eastern time. This is as close to real time as you'll get.
Will it be 7-2 for an Individual Right? 6-3? 5-4?
Will the court libs unite to support the militia only claim?
Will it be a majority opinion or a pluralilty?
Enjoy!
-
bingie told us that it will not even concern individual rights.. that all that will be decided is how much you can restrict the national guard.
lazs
-
Whatever happened to Bingo? What shade does he use now?
Or did he pick up his marbles and go home?
-
I think you were mean to him and he simply got tired of looking like a lying buffoon.
He didn't get tired of it too quickly tho. Lot of endurance considering... Like a mule.
lazs
-
I know I'll get slammed for this but I've said it before and I'll say it again.
After removing the extreme ends of the Bell Curve, the lib side is the least tolerant of other opinions.
It's reflected in the various lib meltdowns we've had here (remember ole even tempered Nash?) and it's reflected in things like the "Fairness Doctrine" thread.
Pardon me, I need to go get my flame suit.
-
Check out the 4 poll questions at the bottom of the blog! :rock
-
I know I'll get slammed for this but I've said it before and I'll say it again.
After removing the extreme ends of the Bell Curve, the lib side is the least tolerant of other opinions.
It's reflected in the various lib meltdowns we've had here (remember ole even tempered Nash?) and it's reflected in things like the "Fairness Doctrine" thread.
Pardon me, I need to go get my flame suit.
liberals all have the same two traits:
be against the norm......no matter what the norm is.
generally feel as if you are a victim.
-
bingie told us that it will not even concern individual rights.. that all that will be decided is how much you can restrict the national guard.
lazs
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...
Is what I said we'll seee in about an hour.
-
liberals are all smiles and calm until you disagree with them.. then they get firm and make stuff up.. if you call em on it they become furious and the spittle and name calling really gets intense. if you tell em to STFU...
They walk away and start working behind your back to get their way by force of law.. like the fairness doctrine for example.
lazs
-
you said a lot of things.. one of which.. the most important.. was that individual right had nothing to do with it and that it would hinge on what the militia was. you felt that the only militia was the national guard.
lazs
-
10:12 Tom Goldstein - Heller affirmed.
10:13 Ben Winograd -
The Court has released the opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290), on whether the District’s firearms regulations – which bar the possession of handguns and require shotguns and rifles to be kept disassembled or under trigger lock – violate the Second Amendment. The ruling below, which struck down the provisions in question, is affirmed.
Justice Scalia wrote the opinion. Justice Breyer dissented, joined by Justices Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. We will provide a link to the decision as soon as it is available.
10:13 Tom Goldstein - Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm.
-
INDIVIDUAL RIGHT! Go SCOTUS!
-
5-4 ruling.
The chowderheads remain chowderheads. I thought given the oral arguments it would be 6-3 at worst.
This is a time where, despite all his truckups, I am glad Bush was in the seat when it came time to appoint two new justices.
-
Thank you.
-
yeah, just noticed that... 5-4's suprising... :(
-
5-4 ruling.
The chowderheads remain chowderheads.
par for the course these days....
-
No, 5-4 is not surprising. Kennedy is left center at best, and closer to left than center. TWO dissenting opinions. For those who didn't get what I meant, I'm happily surprised that Kennedy was NOT in dissent, so I'm NOT surprised the other four were. And all four in dissent signed both dissenting opinions.
-
10:16 Tom Goldstein - Apologies - there is a second dissenting opinion, but only one majority - no plurality and no concurrences.
It is HUGE that there is no plurality.
It's nice there is a second dissenting opinion. That means one of the chowderheads has less chowder in his head most likely.
-
Happy days! :aok
-
:aok
-
Somewhere in the world, a beet1e weeps...
-
HAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I kid you not... I am sitting in my office in south florida.........and outside there is celebratory gun fire right now.
-
liberals all have the same two traits:
be against the norm......no matter what the norm is.
generally feel as if you are a victim.
conservatives always generalize...
(5-4 ruling means we have one less thing to argue about in the O-club now. Sad day...I think I'll go out and shoot)
-
I often wonder if the anti-gun crowd ever pondered the fact that an additional reason most enemy army's may shy away from attacking the us...is the fact that we have such a well armed citizenry. no doubt that has to be a legit concern...and no doubt...that sheds light on the forward thinking of our founding fathers.
“Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”
“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”
“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”
-
conservatives always generalize...
Oh really? They "always" generalize? That sounds like a generalization. :rofl
-
Oh really? They "always" generalize? That sounds like a generalization. :rofl
Whoo hoo... good on you .. you are the brilliant one !!!
-
The United States Stays the United States!!
I am pretty happy about this, I wonder if it will help kill some of Californias stupid laws
Does this take the worry about this election away a bit for you guys as well?
-
The United States Stays the United States!!
I am pretty happy about this, I wonder if it will help kill some of Californias stupid laws
Does this take the worry about this election away a bit for you guys as well?
obama will be our next president baring assasination...of that I have no doubt.
-
I often wonder if the anti-gun crowd ever pondered the fact that an additional reason most enemy army's may shy away from attacking the us...is the fact that we have such a well armed citizenry.
Wolverines!
-
I'm wondering, is there one person posting on this board who is "anti-gun"?
-
Wolverines!
(http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/dynamic/imgs/070706/dvdcrops/reddawn_l.jpg)
-
I'm wondering, is there one person posting on this board who is "anti-gun"?
there were a few, but they don't seem to be here today... I think it's safe to say that the 2nd is one area where the vast majority of AHers are in agreement...
-
Breyer is such a hack.
I scanned his dissent and about 2/3 had nothing to do with the Constitutional issues and was all in support of his personal beliefs on the need for gun control. I don't recall electing Breyer to legislate from the bench on issues beyond the scope of Constitutionality. The other dissenters seemed disappointed that the court did not set a lax level of scrutiny that would allow the right to be irrelevant in practice, no doubt supporting their beliefs in the goodness of gun control. But, they at least performed the aggressive mental gymnastics required to keep their dissent focused on the Constitution.
[edit: However, a variety of restrictions were supported in the opinion, including limits on automatic weapons, likely.]
Charon
-
The United States Stays the United States!!
I am pretty happy about this, I wonder if it will help kill some of Californias stupid laws
Does this take the worry about this election away a bit for you guys as well?
No, and no. The courts can still be stacked by the next President. Even if 4 of the 5 do not retire, 1 may, and a couple of the 4 may in the next 4-8 years, it's almost certain that 1 or 2 will in the next 4 years.
-
5-4 ruling.
The chowderheads remain chowderheads. I thought given the oral arguments it would be 6-3 at worst.
This is a time where, despite all his truckups, I am glad Bush was in the seat when it came time to appoint two new justices.
Wow! In spite of everything it can be said that Bush saved the constitution, for now. Hooray!
-
What amazes me, is the mindset of judges. Their job is not to interpret the law with their personal opinion or morals. Their job is to make sure that the law is applied fairly and in accordance with the Constitution putting their personal feelings aside. The sad thing, is that the majority of people these days believe that personal opinion and morals has more to do with the interpretation of law than the rule of law itself. The downfall of this nation will be from activist judges on the left like Souter and Ginsburg denying us the freedoms set down in the Constitution.
-
Wow! In spite of everything it can be said that Bush saved the constitution, for now. Hooray!
I'd be hard pressed to agree with that. Some of the recent decisions regarding Gitmo detainees would suggest some of his own appointees are concerned with his abuse of the constitution.
I'm so sick and tired of everything being defined by 'liberal' or "conservative". Apparently I'm a sucker in believing these are honorable people who recognize the importance of their role in this country and that their responsibility is to the law and the constitution.
I'd like to believe that regardless of who appointed these judges that in the end, they do the job to the best of their ability in interpreting the law. That because some dissented means they're 'chowderheads' says more about a lack of respect to the court as a whole then anything else.
-
Well, IF the dissenting opinions had been based in Constitutional law, I'd at least give grudging respect. But for the most part, they were NOT.
And I'm NOT surprised Kennedy was the swing vote in a decision to give Constitutional rights to enemy combatants that were never citizens of the nation the Constitution serves. NEVER before has an enemy captured on a battlefield been granted Constitutional rights, and for the life of me, I cannot see why they should be.
I DO NOT agree with Bush on MANY issues. Bush has merely been the lesser of two evils for most of his time in office. However, his administration has been just as correct in saying that enemy combatants are not entitled to Constitutional rights nor access to and trial in regular criminal courts as FDR was when his administration tried and executed German spies.
-
I'd be hard pressed to agree with that. Some of the recent decisions regarding Gitmo detainees would suggest some of his own appointees are concerned with his abuse of the constitution.
I'm so sick and tired of everything being defined by 'liberal' or "conservative". Apparently I'm a sucker in believing these are honorable people who recognize the importance of their role in this country and that their responsibility is to the law and the constitution.
I'd like to believe that regardless of who appointed these judges that in the end, they do the job to the best of their ability in interpreting the law. That because some dissented means they're 'chowderheads' says more about a lack of respect to the court as a whole then anything else.
I'm pretty confident that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been elected we would have a different ruling today or no ruling at all. IMO, without the second, the rest of the constitution would be little more than the paper it's written on. The second will allow us to defend the rest of the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
-
Well, IF the dissenting opinions had been based in Constitutional law, I'd at least give grudging respect. But for the most part, they were NOT.
And that is why I characterized the dissenters as chowderheads, Dan.
There are people that don't believe ANY opinion can be characterized as "activist". However, had this failed to be confirmed as an individual right it couldn't be any more clear that they were amending the Constitution from the bench.
I'll admit that overall, I do not respect the 4 dissenters and have not for quite some time.
-
A legal type with the handle loneviking over on THR posted the following analysis. Rather than try to reword It I'll post his response.
I read the opinion and there are several, interesting points to this decision:
1. There is an individual right, not a collective right. And, this right is not formed by the U.S. Constitution, but is a recognition of a pre-existing right! Justice Scalia takes great pains to go back into English history to show this pre-existing right and how this English right was incorporated into the American constitution.
2. That the right is seperate from militia service. In fact, Scalia points out that the 'militia' referred to was the entire body of citizens, from which Congress could pull, equip and train. This seperation of an individual right that exists apart from militia service is a huge win for those of us who believe in gun rights.
3. The level of scrutiny is 'NONE'! The 2nd Amendment cannot be declared extinct through the use of a level of review. The founders/framers did the balancing act when they drafted the amendment. The amendment right is always going to exist and is ITSELF the standard against which a decision must be made. Courts must rely on the balancing act of the framers and not on some current standard.
4. I find it interesting how, as he has done in the past, Justice Scalia repeatedly punctures the dissenting justices arguments using their own words in past decisions. He really tears up Justice Ginsburgs arguments in the dissenting opinion by pointing to past opinions in which she held to a different defintion for 'to keep and bear arms'. By doing this, Scalia has laid down a gauntlet for any future court that wants to rely on one of the two dissenting opinions to show the logic or consistency of those arguments.
5. Finally, Scalia really does a good job of showing how consistent 2nd amendment cases were up until just recently. The decision shows that stare decisis was used to build upon the original intent of the framers, and that there was a coherent body of case law that had the understanding of an individual right. This signals the understanding that the court is not going off on a new direction, but is correcting the abuses of the last forty or fifty years. Again, it's a challenge to any future court that wants to rely on the dissents to prove this viewpoint wrong.
This is a huge win, and it will now lead to lots of new litigation but the difference is that now the litigation will be carried out with the proviso that an individual right is enshrined (protected, but not created) in the constitution, and it is seperate from military service. You cannot get rid of the right by getting rid of the constitution, which has big implications for situations such as the gun grabs of hurricane Katrina.
Pay attention to these two sentences: 'But the enshrinement of certain constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table'. And 'these include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home.'
Notice that although handgun prohibitions are mentioned, the verbiage is 'these include', not 'these are limited too'. Lots more litigation coming up, but we have at least one protected area enshrined within the 2nd amendment.
-
5-4 ruling means we have one less thing to argue about in the O-club now.
And the winner in the category of "Worst prediction of the year" goes to ...
-
Overall I'm dissapointed with the decision. I read a good bit of the Majority Opinion and too much of the Dissent.
Anyway, in the majority Opinion, he states that the government can't control ownership of guns in common usage*. However, he then clearly states several times that the government can control the commercial sale of guns. They can't stop people from owning it, but they can stop all future purchases of newly manufactured guns. Prohibition anyone?
*The phrase "Common Usage" will come back to haunt us. It basically means the guns we already have. However, merely looking at how proliferate Machine guns are tells us what they are capable of doing with this term. Machine guns aren't in Common Usage NOT due to personal choice, but due to Government limited purchases and the extreme difficulty in purchasing one, not to mention the artificially inflated cost.
Because of the government laws, Machine Guns are not in common usage, and thus can be legally controlled by the government.
Any paranoid person (like myself) would see that all it would take is a few years, and some very restricted sales to remove a gun from common usage from a region. We would see communities that have very little firearms (by choice) suddenly are legally able to ban all firearms.
-
I'm disappointed in the ratio of votes regarding this situation. I am deeply grateful that Bush did have a hand in selecting the court vs the alternative.
I'm very happy at the definitive ruling regarding individual rights and the clarification regarding the militia controversy. I happen to agree with the ruling in that rights are always individual issues and not collective ones. It fits with the concept of personal liberties and rights that are not granted by a state, they are only restricted (or in this case, protected) by a state.
I agree that there will be continuing litigation over the issue hence my disappointment at the ratio of judges. I am very hopeful that the next batch of nominees will be constitutionalists and not legislators from the bench. It was my understanding that issues before the court were to be decided based on the constitutionality of the issue, not the private opinions of the members of the bench. The dissenting opinions are clearly showing a decided bias on the part of the dissenters rather than a scholarly review based on the constitution and the framers intent. The Court is the check and balance part of the tripartite government equation and they really need to keep that in mind.
-
And the winner in the category of "Worst prediction of the year" goes to ...
Stupid 8-ball is always wrong <smacks it>...
-
boy... you should hear old osamabam backpeddling on the issue now...
He is claiming that he always thought it was an individual right and that he never agreed with the democrats who thought DC's law was constitutional..
He had no teleprompter so he really stepped into it.. it will be fun to watch his position from last year and his position from this year played side by side over and over.
He was one of the few who would not sign the amicus brief that said that it was an individual right.
lazs
-
I'm pretty confident that if Al Gore or John Kerry had been elected we would have a different ruling today or no ruling at all. IMO, without the second, the rest of the constitution would be little more than the paper it's written on. The second will allow us to defend the rest of the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
And based on that comment, you are clarifying that you see any decision made by the supreme court as a political leaning decision not a decision based on the law and the constitution.
So in that regard this decision should be seen as nothing more then political conservative leaning and based purely on that and not the law.
And I should have no faith that the highest court in the land can make a reasonable decision, just an ideological based one.
Wow that makes me feel real confident.....
-
boy... you should hear old osamabam backpeddling on the issue now...
He is claiming that he always thought it was an individual right and that he never agreed with the democrats who thought DC's law was constitutional..
He had no teleprompter so he really stepped into it.. it will be fun to watch his position from last year and his position from this year played side by side over and over.
He was one of the few who would not sign the amicus brief that said that it was an individual right.
lazs
He seems to have real knack for saying the wrong thing and contradicting himself but he says it eloquently. Guess that's enough for some folks. Well, that and those Robin Hood dollars he's going to spread around.
-
And based on that comment, you are clarifying that you see any decision made by the supreme court as a political leaning decision not a decision based on the law and the constitution.
So in that regard this decision should be seen as nothing more then political conservative leaning and based purely on that and not the law.
And I should have no faith that the highest court in the land can make a reasonable decision, just an ideological based one.
Wow that makes me feel real confident.....
I've seen it just exactly that way for several decades now. Our government gives me almost no confidence.
-
And that is why I characterized the dissenters as chowderheads, Dan.
There are people that don't believe ANY opinion can be characterized as "activist". However, had this failed to be confirmed as an individual right it couldn't be any more clear that they were amending the Constitution from the bench.
I'll admit that overall, I do not respect the 4 dissenters and have not for quite some time.
But Toad, you are absolutely set in your belief on what the 2nd Amendment says. I've got quite the arsenal here, and love to shoot, but it's never been clear to me based on the militia wording. Does that make me a chowderhead for not seeing it that clearly? What you gents are saying is that due to political placement, and for no other reason, this was finally seen the way a very conservative, right leaning bunch wanted to see it. Their ideoligical view is closer to yours so it's gotta be right while everyone who doesn't see it that way is wrong or 'activist'.
What a terrible way to look at the court, and people in general.
I can respect the decision as the highest court in our land has ruled on it, and I can respect the dissenting opinions as they ask the same questions that I do. One of the beauties of the constitution is it allows for dissent, and not respecting that right or condemning folks for not agreeing with your ideological view is downright scary to me.
-
I've seen it just exactly that way for several decades now. Our government gives me almost no confidence.
And your solution would be? Outside of little jackboots for everyone and denying our right to dissent and disagree what do you want? Show me a system that works better?
-
I'm disappointed in the ratio of votes regarding this situation. I am deeply grateful that Bush did have a hand in selecting the court vs the alternative.
Absolutely. I am also disappointed in the ratio....................no, I`m amazed would be better words.
A victory is a victory though. Much work to be done now.
-
And your solution would be? Outside of little jackboots for everyone and denying our right to dissent and disagree what do you want? Show me a system that works better?
Whoa, who said anything about denying anyone's right to dissent, besides you?
How about a government that doesn't see fit to redistibute our wealth (my hard earned bucks) for starters? How about a government that enforces the laws we have on the books like our immigration laws for example? Instead of trying to shut up the radio hosts when they energized people to defeat their amnesty bill how about a congress that represents the people instead of one that tries to control them? I could go on if you want?
-
I can respect the decision as the highest court in our land has ruled on it, and I can respect the dissenting opinions as they ask the same questions that I do. One of the beauties of the constitution is it allows for dissent, and not respecting that right or condemning folks for not agreeing with your ideological view is downright scary to me.
Read all three opinions. The majority decision is Constitutional-based. The minority opinion still holds to the militia deal that even top liberal scholars like Tribe have discarded. Could this be for primarily ideological reasons given the virtual lack of academic support it has outside the gun control community today? They REALLY have to make some mental gymnastics to have that position in the face of the actual scholarship cited in the majority opinion. Then, the minority dissents wander directly into non constitutional areas where they have public policy objections. Breyers is even 2/3 public policy and not constitution.
The justices are not on the court to set public policy at their whim. They are not there to rule on ideology. We have the legislative and executive branches for that. We can freely change the Constitution as required using the appropriate channels. The court justices are there strictly to rule if a law meets existing constitutional muster.
Scalia addresses the dissent numerous times in a very specific manner. Calls to question directly, personally and forcefully their "logic." He addresses Breyer and the public policy "stuff" here:
After an exhaustive discussion of the arguments for and against gun control, JUSTICE BREYER arrives at his interestbalanced answer: because handgun violence is a problem, because the law is limited to an urban area, and because there were somewhat similar restrictions in the founding period (a false proposition that we have already discussed), the interest-balancing inquiry results in the constitutionality of the handgun ban. QED.
We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all. Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).
The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.
and
Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.
and
In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque.[/b]
Again, read all 3 opinions.
Charon
-
I've got quite the arsenal here, and love to shoot, but it's never been clear to me based on the militia wording. Does that make me a chowderhead for not seeing it that clearly?
Dan, Charon has explained it very well. I can't add much to what he said or what he quoted from Scalia's judgement.
As for your failure to see it as an individual right, I would have to assume. I assume you are a very intelligent guy from your body of posts here. Therefore, I must assume that you simply have not done your homework on this issue. The intent of the 2nd is clear as can be from the writings of the founders before and after the 2nd was written. The history of the 2nd is clear. It's there for any true scholar. So if you arrive at your conclusion because you have not seriously researched the 2nd (Scalia gives a fine history of the right today; a good place to start and no point in me repeating stuff here) you would not be a chowderhead. If you have done the research and choose denial, well.. I guess I would consider you a chowderhead on this issue.
To be fair to myself, I believe I said the court libs were chowderheaded on the Kelo V New London eminent domain ruling in favor of the City of New London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. At nearly the same time I believe I said Scalia was a dead wrong chowderhead on using interstate commerce on the medical marijuana case. (Note of course that the libs were chowderheaded on that one too....).
I will point out, echoing Charon, that Constitutional support in today's dissenting opinions is sadly lacking; their primary recourse is to personal opinion. I think Scalia shames Breyer and Stevens in this area; he shows them for what they are, and they are definitely NOT judging on a Constitutional basis. But then they didn't judge on a Constitutional basis on eminent domain or medical marijuana either... sooooooo... they're tough to respect because they dont' respect the Constitution.
-
.
-
As an aside. Funniest two satirical alias names from the various posts today on other boards (and both by the same guy):
Juan McShamnesty and Ruth Beider Meinhoff
Got a chuckle.
Charon
-
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the wording of the Second Amendment in the Constitution was all that the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject.
It's not.
There are a lot of other documents, letters, and other writings by them that shed more light on the actual meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, almost all of which refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right. The reference to militias is simply a phrase pointing out that the presence of militias, comprised of private citizens bearing their own arms, is the best defense against the development of tyranny within our own government.
-
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the wording of the Second Amendment in the Constitution was all that the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject.
It's not.
There are a lot of other documents, letters, and other writings by them that shed more light on the actual meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, almost all of which refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right. The reference to militias is simply a phrase pointing out that the presence of militias, comprised of private citizens bearing their own arms, is the best defense against the development of tyranny within our own government.
So true Shuckins. There is lots of documents from that time frame that show exactly what the founders intended with the 2nd Amendment.
-
Stupid 8-ball is always wrong <smacks it>...
Tell 8-ball to never underestimate the need for bitter O'Clubbers to cling to gun threads.
-
5 to 4
they are one election away from overturning it .. enjoy your guns while you can or start forming your own militia now ..
-
5 to 4
they are one election away from overturning it .. enjoy your guns while you can or start forming your own militia now ..
or check this (http://www.awrm.org/MilitiaContacts.htm) out and get in touch with one of the groups listed there... not every state is represented so you might want to check their forums for more info...
-
Wow! In spite of everything it can be said that Bush saved the constitution, for now. Hooray!
I wouldnt go THAT far
Second ammendment maybe.
But we still have a little thing lurking over our heads called "The Patriot Act"
-
The consensus is this was a profoundly solid decision in detail and even scope. The clarity of the decision and Scalia's rebuttals of the minority opinions are so focused and footnoted that they make it very difficult for a later court to change it much.
A lot of people support gun control. Fine.
But, as a lot of us have said the framers did not. They were clear on that in their private writing, essays, speeches the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist Papers and even the "confusing" language of the 2nd Amendment itself. The English law they based much of the Constitution on was as clear even. Highly regarded liberal scholars like Tribe have come around, far more so than relics like Ginsburg and Souter and Breyer and Stevens who still feel it is their job to take on activist roles and be the third component of the Legislative branch instead of sticking to their finite responsibilities of Interpreting law against the dicta of the Constitution. Just read their decisions. Even a layman can see lack of Constitutional foundation. As noted, roughly 2/3 of Breyer's separate dissent was modern public policy. Guess what. That's why we elect a President, Representatives and Senators. Not in his job description, and finally there are enough constructionists to keep him from developing NEW law from the bench.
So, if you are unhappy about the 2nd and think it is antiquated and does more harm then good... well. All is not lost. You simply have to amend the Constitution. This ruling simply clarified what was common knowledge up until fairly recent time -- perhaps the late 30s but really the 1960s through 1990s -- the 2nd is an individual right just like the others on the BOR.
Charon
[EDIT: ANOTHER PLUG! TAKE PART IN THE HISTORIC RALLY AT THE THOMPSONG CENTER, DOWNTOWN CHICAGO, 11:00 FRIDAY JULY 11. Show little-big-man Daley, Jesse, Father Phleger and the Chicago Tribune, which had a tantrum on Friday CALLING TO REPEAL THE 2ND, that you are tired of their carp and you aren't going to take it anymore. BE A PART OF HISTORY! There are actually people flying in from out of state for this. BTW, the NRA is not sponsoring the rally -- grassroots.]
-
The hypocritical Tribune has weighed in on the issue. Their Friday tantrum called to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Not a single, educated SPECIFIC criticism on any specific point in the decision -- just an emotional response for what is a pet, activist issue at this fish wrapper. It's full of direct statements without substantiation like: "But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent."
Try reading the decision, strokes. It does just that and shows how you actually have to consider the previous 150 years as well.
Oh, and this:
"Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders."
DUH -- BILL OF RIGHTS, buttholes! The City of Chicago can't decide that in the interest of quality Journalism the hack Tribune should be banned either.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment
No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.
The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.
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.
If the founders had limited themselves to the final 14 words, the amendment would have been an unambiguous declaration of the right to possess firearms. But they didn’t and it isn’t. The amendment was intended to protect the authority of the states to organize militias. The inartful wording has left the amendment open to public debate for more than 200 years. But in its last major decision on gun rights, in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that that was the correct interpretation.
On Tuesday, five members of the court edited the 2nd Amendment. In essence, they said: Scratch the preamble, only 14 words count. (Click here to read the full decision)
In doing so, they have curtailed the power of the legislatures and the city councils to protect their citizens.
The majority opinion in the 5-4 decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., ban on handgun possession goes to great lengths to parse the words of the 2nd Amendment. The opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, spends 11 1/2 pages just on the meaning of the words "keep and bear arms."
But as Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a compelling dissent, the five justices in the majority found no new evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to limit the power of government to regulate the use of firearms. They found no new evidence to overturn decades of court precedent.
They have claimed, Stevens wrote, "a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries."
It’s a relief that the majority didn’t go further in its policy-making on gun control.
The majority opinion states that the D.C. handgun ban and a requirement for trigger locks violate the 2nd Amendment. By virtue of this decision, Chicago’s 1982 ban on handguns is not likely to survive a court challenge. A lawsuit seeking to overturn the Chicago ordinance was filed on Thursday by the Illinois State Rifle Association.
The majority, though, did state that the right under the 2nd Amendment "is not unlimited." So what does that mean? The majority left room for state and local governments to restrict the carrying of concealed weapons in public, to prohibit weapons in "sensitive places such as schools and government buildings," and to regulate the sale of firearms. The majority allowed room for the prohibition of "dangerous and unusual weapons." It did not stipulate what weapons are not "dangerous."
Lower courts are going to be mighty busy figuring out all of this.
We can argue about the effectiveness of municipal handgun bans such as those in Washington and Chicago. They have, at best, had limited impact. People don’t have to go far beyond the city borders to buy a weapon that’s prohibited within the city. (Click here for gun-related crime statistics)
But neither are these laws overly restrictive. Citizens have had the right to protect themselves in their homes with other weapons, such as shotguns.
Some view this court decision as an affirmation of individual rights. But the damage in this ruling is that it takes a significant public policy issue out of the hands of citizens. The people of Washington no longer have the authority to decide that, as a matter of public safety, they will prohibit handgun possession within their borders.
Chicago and the nation saw a decline in gun violence over the last decade or so, but recent news has been ominous. The murder rate in Chicago has risen 13 percent this year. Guns are still the weapon of choice for mayhem in the U.S. About 68 percent of all murders in 2006 were committed with a firearms, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Yes, it’s an anachronism.
We won’t repeal the amendment, but at least we can have that debate.
Want to debate whether crime-staggered cities should prohibit the possession of handguns? The Supreme Court has just said, forget about it.
Even the LA Times editorial, while policy and sour grapes in flavor, is more educated and moderate:
Guns, yes and no
Individuals have a right to own firearms, the Supreme Court rules. But there can still be limits.
June 27, 2008
Presented with two historically plausible arguments about whether the 2nd Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, the Supreme Court on Thursday opted for the interpretation less suited to a 21st century America bedeviled by gun crime. That's the disappointing part of the court's long-awaited ruling striking down the District of Columbia's strict gun-control ordinance. Fortunately, even though the decision endorses the individual-right explanation, it may have limited impact.
Gun-rights advocates will focus on what they will see as the magic words in Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion for a 5-4 majority: "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the 2nd Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms." Though a bit wordy for a bumper sticker, in isolation it could have been composed by the National Rifle Assn.
But Scalia immediately added this qualification: "Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the 1st Amendment's right of free speech was not." Elsewhere, Scalia explicitly cited gun-control laws not affected by this ruling, including those prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms, banning guns from schools and other "sensitive places" and, most important, regulating the sale of guns. Finally, Scalia's definition of weapons protected by the amendment -- those in common use "for lawful purposes like self-defense" -- would seem to exclude Uzis and machine guns. (This ruling thus does not provide an excuse for Congress not to reenact a federal ban on assault weapons.)
None of this changes the fact that the majority -- including Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who pledged fealty to precedent at his confirmation -- has upended an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that has been the majority view for more than half a century: that the amendment's reference to "a well-regulated" militia limits the right to keep and bear arms to organized military units such as the National Guard.
In his dissent, in which he tellingly traded historical -- and linguistic -- arguments with Scalia, Justice John Paul Stevens offered a spirited defense of the traditional view, one we wish the majority had embraced. But it is a fact that legal historians, some of them supporters of gun control as a matter of policy, increasingly have argued that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. (For that reason, some of them have advocated repeal of the amendment -- an undesirable option because it would open up the entire Bill of Rights to revision.)
It was probably inevitable that the court would revisit this issue. The district's ordinance, which banned handguns and made it impossible for law-abiding citizens to keep working firearms in their homes, provided an unusually tempting target for justices who wanted to reconsider a constitutional issue that had been absent from their docket for almost 70 years. Thursday's decision needlessly complicated the lives of legislators seeking to bring gun violence under control. But it could have been.
The hacks at the Tribune Company (our "conservative" paper -- HAHA) need to find new jobs. For all their diversity -- the right colors and genders -- there is no cultural diversity at all.
Charon
-
the media again proves that it's far left slant is at complete odds with the constitution and the American people...
And they wonder why they are losing money hand over fist.
The articles noted that the Scalia said that the second was indeed and individual right but, like the first, free speech, was not without restriction. I will be thrilled if we use the same level of scrutiny and restriction on the second as on the first.. if setting a flag on fire is considered free speech... How can not allowing concealed carry not be "infringing" on my right to keep and bear arms for hunting and self defense?
lazs
-
There's a fellow taking orders for these T-shirts over on The High Road.
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=373307
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff233/lanternlad/hellerkitty372.jpg)