View Single Post
  #270  
Old 09-08-2019, 02:49 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
I like how you have the part of Breyers introduction where he says he has four propositions, and then just cite the one you like.

Here's the rest:
I like them all. None either prove the . . . well, whatever it is you are arguing now, or disprove the individual right interpretation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
(2)As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939) ; see ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
That is the "object" of he 2nd Amendment, why the AMENDMENT is there. The AMENDMENT was adopted with a purpose of perpetuating the militia. The militia can not be called up or trained or organized or deployed if the citizens are not armed. The actual structure that is established in Art I, §8, cl's 15& 16 is predicated on having armed citizens to call on; citizens who only serve when called. It is they who possess the right to arms, not the militia. Their arms facilitate the structure, the structure is not the purpose for their arms.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
OK. The Amendment must be interpreted and applied with the object in view. The object was to preserve the continuation of the general militia concept so that both the states and the federal government would have a ready pool of properly equipped citizens to call up at a moments notice, mustering with an appropriate arm furnished by themselves, to aid the civil authority when circumstances demand it.

The object also is "to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution". It does this by assuring the people that because "the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority" (Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158, cited by Miller).

So fine, I have no problem interpreting and applying the 2nd Amendment on those principles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."
No rights are absolute in an ordered society and no powers are absolute in a Constitutional Republic. The fact that the right to arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights, takes certain policy choices off the table.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamlet View Post
Also, as Stevens says: "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.
An then he goes directly to the words of the 2nd Amendment to conjure a restrictive "scope" from words that the right in no manner depends upon.

Stevens should have confined his legal expeditions within the boundaries established by long-standing Supreme Court explanations of the right to arms and the 2nd Amendment (two separate and distinct things).

.