Incorrect, I’m afraid. As I thoroughly explained in this thread:
I also like that thread because page 2 offers another prime example of me shredding Joe_Cool when he spouts off about case law it’s clear he hasn’t even bothered to read.
Sheesh, sometimes it seems like you guys just refuse to pay attention when I explain what the law says. As I explained to you towards the bottom of the page here:
No, minty. The reasoning matters because if they had decided that question in the opposite direction, it would have affected the holding.
Because they didn’t, but decided it in the direction that they did, they moved on to a second aspect of the question. But the process of reasoning that necessitated the second amendment discussion was relevant to the ultimate decision in the case. Hence, the second amendment discussion is not dicta.
A good analogy: the second-amendment discussion is a dead end that they had to explore before they could decide that the path they went down to reach their decision was correct or not. If they hadn’t, they couldn’t know that their decision was correct – the dead end might have been the correct path after all. To know, they had to take that path and examine it. Hence, their examination of that path was relevant to their ultimate decision, and hence was not dicta.
If you spent more time explaining, and less time loudly trumpeting your own horn, people would probably be more likely to listen to you.
Wrong. The majority admittied that Emerson loses no matter whether it’s an individual right or a collective right. Since the resolution of the question didn’t matter to the case, it’s rank dicta.
Nonsense. They didn’t have to explore it at all. Emerson lost either way.
Screw that. I’ve spend considerable time and effor addressing these issues in many past threads. In the case of the questions now raised by Joe and Max, I’ve specifically responded to the exact same questions posed by those two posters in previous threads. Since the answer now is the same as the answer the, it’s simply much more efficient to refer them back to the originals.
It’s amusing to me how you continually call it “rank” dicta. As if dicta were somehow noxious or something.
Anyway, the fifth circuit itself, in their opinion, specifically reject your claim that their second amendment discussion is dicta.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm
Like I said, spend less time trumpeting your own horn and more time reading the things you’re talking about.
Oh, so the two judges in the majority say it’s not dicta. Well, that clears everything up then. Thanks much.
Well, it’s the most recent court ruling on the matter 
More seriously, though, the entire “dicta” question is a little irrellevant. . .message boards aren’t courtrooms. The reasoning in the emerson decision is much more complete and in-depth than in any court decision on the second amendment since, well, Miller (and really before.)
I don’t think it’s legitimate to casually dismiss something because it can be claimed to be dicta. The important thing, imho, is whether the reasoning in the Emerson decision is sound/correct.
You seem to be under the misconcetion that I’m saying my position is right because the courts have endorsed it. In fact, my personal position is somewhat at odds with the collective right endorced by 9 out of 10 federal circuit opinions. All I’m doing is telling people what the law is, not what it should be. You wanna argue that the law should endorse an individual right? Knock yourself out.
That’s right. Because minty green is THE authority when it comes to explaining the law.
So any time anybody says he’s wrong, that means they obviously didn’t bother to read.
:rolleyes:
Minty if the law is settled, then the only thing to do is talk about what the law ought to be. Otherwise, where is the debate?
Still can’t find any individual right in Miller, eh Joe?
Rhummy, it belongs in these threads because pro-gun posters almost invariably take the position that their stance is supported by the law, particularly the Second Amendment. It is not.
well, I think the reasoning in the Emerson decision clearly establishes the law – the black letter of the Constitution – does endorse an individual rights interpretation, albeit a limited and regulated individual right. The other court decisions on the matter are much more shoddily reasoned.
Of course, this gets into one’s definition of “the law.” Is the law a purely practical matter – whatever the giant of the courts happens to enforce – or is there an objectively knowable “correct” version of the law, which is “the law,” and which courts who contravene are in error and acting illegally?
In a constitutional government, I think one has to argue that there is such a knowable, objective, “correct” version of the law; otherwise, court decisions could never be overturned on constitutional grounds. Sometimes courts are simply wrong, and when they are, their decisions are not correct law, no matter how prevalent the enforcement of those decisions.
Ok, smart ass. One more time, even though we’ve been over this time and again…
These are all cited passages in the decision:
and most notably:
Miller’s conviction was upheld on the grounds that this particular weapon had not been demonstrated to have any utility to the militia, and therefore cannot be borne by a private citizen, military arms being protected under the 2nd Amendment. If the court had held otherwise, the 2nd Amendment portion of the decision would have stated that he had no right to own any firearm at all.
I realize lawyer school dimmed your reading comprehension, but I’ll help you out: meaning doesn’t need to be expressly spelled out in so many words. You may continue holding your hands over your ears and yelling “LA LA LA LA” all you like, but that is, regardless of whether you like it, what this decision says.
minty, have you ever read Miller, or do you just go on what one of your professors told you? Hearsay isn’t quite up to scratch as evidence, is it?
Please excuse my ignorance, but as a lot of gun control debates seem to go back to trying to interpret the opinions of people 200+ years ago, what is stopping the US amending the constitution to something that everybody understands and a majority agree with?
ShetlandPony: easy enough in concept; nearly impossible in execution.
I agree that it needs to be done. Clarify that bastard into something so simple even a lawyer or a Congressperson can’t fuck it up (that, too, may be nearly impossible).
But I honestly believe that both sides, pro- and anti-gun, are scared shitless of how such a Constitutional Convention might turn out.
Calenth: howdy! Welcome to the Straight Dope!
Hear, Hear! Of course, you are now a national security threat (me too, for agreeing), so just surrender peacefully to the new Office of Homeland Security and spare them shooting you in the head while resisting arrest.
(Since you’re new, that’s just my skewed sense of humor talking; I am not a paranoid anti-gov’t type. IANAPAGT).
Actually, some of us take the stance that the opposing viewpoint is NOT supported by facts. But that’s a whole 'nother debate…
Lack of a proper majority vote in Congress. They’re hesitant to change things.