Well that’s a silly question to ask, even rhetorically. Advocacy groups don’t advocate for positions contrary to their core planks, so why would the NRA advocate for gun control when they are a group that is specifically to support a pro-gun position? that has zero to do with the part you quoted, which is that new regulations aren’t inherently un-Constitutional. You do realize, I trust, that just because the NRA supports something or doesn’t support something has little to do with it’s Constitutionality, yes?
The quote in question has nothing to do with which weapons can be regulated.
It says, “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” Period. Full stop.
It does not say that in this case when deciding about this particular gun we apply this thinking. That thinking is to be applied in all 2nd amendment cases.
You keep moving the goalposts around. This whole recent back-and-forth started when you questioned that Heller changed a 70 year old precedent.
It did. I just showed you. And it is no small precedent either. Scalia took us from interpreting 2nd amendment cases with regard to militias to disconnecting the militia aspect completely. Nevermind that it is written right there in the constitution. Never mind that in Marbury vs Madison the court said, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”
Scalia just made words in the constitution without effect and that changed a 70 year old precedent which said you had to interpret these cases with that word in mind. So really he upended precedent in Marbury as well as Miller.
The entire case was about which guns can be prohibited. Period. Full stop. It was not about who could own guns or for what reason. It was about which guns could be owned. And this is where you misunderstand Scalia, too. In the same manner, Scalia would argue against private citizens owning nuclear weapons. Those are used by standing armies, not militia.
You didn’t answer my clarifying question. Do you think Miller says that the 2nd must be interpreted only in the context of the militia?
No, you didn’t show it because you haven’t quoted the actual holding in the opinion. Regardless, Heller does examine the 2nd in context of the militia, but that’s not the only aspect to consider and Miller never purported that it was. Again, you are wrong. The holding in Miller was about which guns fall under the auspices of the 2nd amendment.
My goalposts are firmly in place - that being you’ve made several factual errors which renders your analysis suspect. See here again you think that Heller made a part of the second amendment without effect. The effect is actually described in Heller so this is obviously false for anyone who has read the opinion. Have you read Heller?
And for clarity, no precedent was changed in Heller because Heller is consistent with SCOTUS precedent. They even say as mich in the opinion.
This argument would imply that Heller was substantially an affirmation and clarification of existing common law, rather than new law. Did the plaintiffs think they were on such firm ground when it was argued?
I honestly don’t know, but wouldn’t be surprised if they did. They were asserting that the law infringed on their rights, not that some new right needed to be created. And that is almost always the case in such instances. However, what difference would it make what the plaintiffs thought? Clearly, the Court’s majority opinion is stated as an affirmation of existing jurisprudence, and that’s all that really matters.
What is this “Demonstartion” thing, and why does it deserve capitalization?
Justice Stevens thinks you are wrong as do the other supreme court justices who joined his dissent. Yeah I know, five judges is more than four but I feel comfortable in my purported wrongness on this.
Protip: FYI Just because someone says a thing does not make it so.
It’s odd that someone with such a strong claim to knowledge of the history of gun laws would think that. In fact the NRA’s extremism is only a few decades old. What you call “core planks” are recent inventions.
How many machine guns have you bought recently, btw?
You’ve already been shown where that assertion in the opinion is the opposite of fact. That Scalia would lie to support a predetermined conclusion should not surprise you.
I’m really at a loss to understand how the whole militia thing really matters one way or another. Surely you don’t think the 2nd amendment re: gun ownership is limited to folks currently serving in a militia, do you? The militia is “any adult who can at some time be called up to serve in a militia”. How is that different from “any adult”? If you have any doubts about that, take another look at Miller, which explains this in great detail. I suppose one might argue that there is an age limit to serving in a militia, so there should be an age limit to owning guns. But, does that really make sense? That only folks under the age of 50 can own guns, unless expressly allowed by the government? And wouldn’t the government immediately pass a law rescinding that age requirement if some court were to decide that old folks could be excluded from gun ownership?
So, arguendo, let’s say we decide: The “militia” clause is very important for all aspects of 2nd amendment jurisprudence, including who can and cannot own a gun. In what way does that place a restriction on gun ownership?
The 70’s were 4 decades ago. But ok, in during the Civil War and early in the 20th century the NRA supported gun control but doesn’t today. Probably because their base has become more and more disenchanted with gun control as it became evident that many gun control measures were really just being used to tighten down harder and harder with the end goal of either outright bans on large categories of firearms or making it so difficult for the average person to obtain a firearm that it might as well be banned.
As to my overall point, I still think it stands. Advocacy groups are to advocate on their vertical positions, and it would be odd if they went against their core planks. I’m fairly sure I could dig up instances of other advocacy groups tightening up on their policies and becoming more vertically focused in the last 40 years as our politics have become more and more rancorous and more and more inclusive/exclusive as the sides were drawn on any number of issues. Hell, the political parties themselves don’t operate the same way they did 40+ years ago as they do now, with so many vertical issues dominating one party or another and basically identifying membership in one party or another based on that vertical issue. Gun control/pro-gun is merely one of many such groups, and the NRA merely one advocacy group that has shifted with the times to a more militant stance and less tolerant of any sort of concessions. It’s a microcosm for why our entire system seems dysfunctional and broken these days.
No idea what point you are trying to make here. There have been a series of measures that have made owning a machine gun harder and harder to obtain. If it’s that the NRA supported the National Firearms Act, well, good for them. It was the right call and I wish they were like that today, able to balance their advocacy and those voters who comprise their members and the good of the country. But the country isn’t what it was in the 30’s. The political parties themselves aren’t what they were then. Compromise has become a dirty word on both sides of the isle, though I think it’s worse with the Republicans these days than with the Democrats especially with the current president.
I take it you still believe that precedent was overturned with Heller. That’s fine. I think you were almost there, but for some reason aren’t willing to say it. This was the closest:
That precedent wasn’t overturned is a matter of law - so your statement that 'it may well be law…’ is exactly the point.
Let’s go to a different example of your errors, post #59 [citing Heller]:
Here you assert that Heller stood for the proposition that we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791. I pointed out in post #65 that this is an incorrect reading of Heller, and was rejected in Caetano. Your assertion is false. Here is what the court said per curiam:
Your reasoning and assertion was rejected in Heller, contrary to what you said in #59, and was again rejected in Caetano. That was the full court, no dissents. Moreover, the court didn’t even consider it necessary to hear arguments, they simply accepted the case and ruled. Again, as a matter of law your assertion is wrong. I see a theme.
If we are to believe that Whack-a-Mole thinks that Stevens dissent should have carried the day, then that is the argument that was advanced. Here is from Stevens:
If Stevens’ dissent were instead the majority, then notwithstanding state level protections, the federal government would be free to ban any and all arms outside of those that are used in connection with militia or military service. Stevens says as much, that the 2nd is limited only to when serving in the militia or military. It’s not really surprising given Stevens’ desire to repeal the 2nd amendment all together. But since that was not an option for him as a SCOTUS justice, the best he could do would be to interpret it so it was meaningless.
Wow, you spotted a typographical error, the same error many others spotted and at least one mentioned!!:eek: And you came into a serious debate to mention this! :eek:Great, fantastic, here’s a cookie. 
I don’t think Stevens is necessarily saying that gun ownership can be restricted to anyone not currently serving in a militia. Maybe he is meaning to say that, but his wording need not be interpreted that way. But I would be curious to see what Whack-a-Mole thinks and why the “militia” seems so important. As the majority opinion in Miller noted, any and all citizens (used to be just males, but now females) can be considered potentially part of the militia and that is how the 2nd has been interpreted. It is, after all, “the people” who are referred to in the 2nd part of the 2nd, not “the militia”.
I can’t think of another way to interpret Stevens’ dissent. So yes, that’s how I read it - but that is a conclusion to draw from Stevens’ statement. What he is specifically arguing is that the 2nd amendment only applies to those serving in the militia or military. Outside of the context of militia/military service the 2nd amendment is not operative.
Breyer’s dissent states this reason similarly:
Essentially the right only applies when serving in a militia, or to an extent home storage for militia purposes.
Here again, Stevens constrains the population that is considered “the people” to those in context of service in a well-regulated militia. Outside of that, the 2nd wouldn’t apply based on the dissent from Stevens:
Stevens sets aside the idea that the militia could be expanded to include all able bodied men and women, etc. His dissent focuses on service in the militia, not simply being a member of the militia. Remember, his goal was to pave the way to repealing the 2nd amendment.
It seems to be the latest gambit by the anti-gun crowd to really focus on the militia part. If they can prove that both halves of the amendment are equal (or that there aren’t two distinct parts, better yet), then when they point out that we don’t have or need a militia anymore it renders the entire amendment invalid so it can be dismissed without all of that messy Constitutional change stuff. It completely ignores the context and history as well as the writings of those who actually authored the thing, and basically is based on someone who doesn’t know anything about any of that stuff beyond simply reading it (with a bias towards making it say what they want it to say).
Historically, not everyone had to be in the militia. People could opt out due to religious conviction or health issues. This didn’t render them without the right to keep and bear arms, however. It seems strange, to me, that people like Whack-a-Mole or Elvis really think that the authors would so limit the right, even if they want to ignore any of the context or history of the thing…or simply looking at the early drafts if they don’t want to be bothered with reading through Madison’s writings. Do they REALLY think that only people who march around in a militia have a right to keep and bear arms? I seriously doubt they do if they really give it much thought. But it’s convenient for them to think that, especially as it says ‘regulated’ right there (and they can ignore the context of that term wrt the times it was written in)…it allows them to justify violating the amendment and not having to go through the process of getting rid of the thing in the way the founders gave us to do so.
It’s *one *sentence, not two. Take another look. It all goes together. The original intent is right there for all to see.
If you’re asking what right is covered outside of militia use, it just doesn’t say either way. The Constitution is simply silent regarding anything beyond the right of the National Guard to have armaments, even if Scalia was able to yank something out of the air. Rights do exist that aren’t explicitly defined (that’s discussed elsewhere in the Constitution, a good read if you ever find the time), but they need explicit and convincing arguments to get recognized.
*We *understand *your *POV quite well, now it’s time for you to make a similar effort.
That first sentence, ah… “gun ownership can be restricted to anyone not currently serving in a militia”. I mean, maybe someone might say that owning a gun may be restricted to someone who is actually serving, or may potentially serve, but who says it may be restricted to people who are *not *currently serving?
Shirley, people who are serving in a militia won’t have less access than someone who is not?