It may be frustrating but it’s true. The Second Amendment does give a broad right to own and carry firearms. It’s the law.
Now a lot of people (including you and I) may feel that right is a bad idea. But the proper course is to change the Constitution when you think it’s wrong not ignore it.
That’s impractical. The founding fathers, because of their fear of democracy, made it too difficult to change the Constitution.
What about the $20 right-to-a-jury-trial clause in the seventh amendment? Was it wrong for Congress, and the federal judiciary, to ignore it, and make laws and rules concerning how federal courts operate? I don’t see why. The law is what the case law says it is. If it is fine and dandy to take into account that the value of $20 has declined, so that we can ignore the $20 limit today, why not take into account that the power of guns has increased, and ignore the 2nd amendment for large magazine sizes unavailable in the 1790’s?
The Bill of Rights is what the Supreme Court makes it. I’m pretty sure that magazine size limits wouldn’t be overruled by the Supreme Court.
Who knows? Keep a record and, just possibly, you’ll experience the joy of saying I told you so. Maybe you should hunt down some of the law profs who agree the Supremes have lost enthusiasm for the 2nd amendment, and see if you can get some kind of admit-wrong pledge out of them.
If you are so sure that the Supreme Court will overturn state magazine size limits, a federal one should give you no heartburn. Your Supreme Court buddies will bat it down.
It’s this sort of naked tyranny that evokes such a strong reaction from supporters of the 2nd amendment. It’s not just about guns, it’s about the rule of law.
Well, at least for the bits you don’t like.
I decline your implicit power-grab. If the the amendment process is too cumbersome, then gather sufficient support to change the amendment process. But that, too, is “too difficult,” justifying your desire to simply ignore it?
No.
I see that confident but wrong declarations from you are not limited to basic firearm facts. You’re willing to assert confidently all sorts of errors!
It’s true that the law is what the case law says it is. But it’s not true that the right to a jury trial was the victim of being ignored.
As you might benefit from the actual text, I remind you that the right is limited to “suits at common law.” Did you remember that? Would you care to identify a case today that you believe should qualify but has been ignored? Here’s a hint: federal diversity statutes are not “suits at common law.” And “suits at common law” does not mean “any civil cause of action.”
Where, today, do you believe federal courts are hearing suits at common law?
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy]
That’s impractical. The founding fathers, because of their fear of democracy, made it too difficult to change the Constitution.
[/QUOTE]
Whoa, what?? Are you saying that a bunch of abstinence types and women could do what your group can’t?? They were able to get freaking alcohol abolished in the US, something that is and was even more popular than guns are to Americans. Good grief, I can’t believe you said this with a straight face. :eek: I also can’t believe that you’d want to set the precedence that because you and others of like mind don’t like something, it should be easy to change that, even if the majority disagrees. Do you feel the same about the other amendments in the Constitution? Should it be easy for folks who, say, don’t like pornography or some other form of speech to get it banned and censored? Should it be easy for a group of, say, radical Christians to get the separation of church and state overturned?? Should they just be able to go around the Constitution to do these things because, you know, it’s hard to change the Constitution and they really feel like they are right and all, regardless of what the majority of their fellow Americans feel??
Drinking was extremely unpopular. That’s why every state except one ratified the prohibition amendment.
Church and state aren’t completely separate in the US, examples being the Christmas holiday, and in God we Trust on money, and government-paid chaplains.
Politically appointed judges are paid good money to decide how strictly church and state will be separated. This system seems to me to be working. Personally, I prefer parliamentary supremacy to our system of politically-appointed-for-life judges applying their politics to vague constitutional phrases, but the latter is what we’re realistically stuck with.
Why am I, not a deep supporter of the US constitution (I prefer the Westminster system), supposed to be more loyal to it than judges sworn to uphold it? If five judges out of nine think the 2nd amendment is an individual right to keep a gun at home, but only two out of nine care to guarantee an individual right to a thirty bullet magazine, that’s constitutional law.
No- drunkenness was unpopular, but 70% of Americans drank. Oddly, no one thought it’d stop their kind of social drinking. Just the boozehound in the gutter.
Christmas is secular. Santa, Rudolph, Frosty, etc. It’s also Yule, Solstice, etc, so it’s non-denominational.
Non-denominational “God”. A general belief in a Supreme being isnt considered a 1st Ad issue.
Every religion can have one, even Pagans, etc.
[QUOTE=PhillyGuy]
Drinking was extremely unpopular. That’s why every state except one ratified the prohibition amendment.
[/QUOTE]
Well…with the Dry’s it was, certainly. There are, to me, a lot of parallels between the various temperance movements and the more radical anti-gun types, and I think a similar trajectory would ensue if the gun banners got their way in the US at this stage in our history (or if they had gotten their way in the past for that matter). Obviously, alcohol wasn’t a protected right, so the temperance folks didn’t have to get a Constitutional amendment nullified first, just get a new amendment installed before bringing out the ban hammer making it illegal to make or distribute alcohol (you could still drink it, though where you’d get it since it was illegal to distill your own even is a bit of a head scratcher), and it actually did achieve it’s goal…crime in the US went down measurable, as did the number of deaths due to alcohol each year (and this is even counting the number of new deaths from gang violence). But it was wildly unpopular, was flouted by just about everyone (though it made people more circumspect and thus they drank less than they would have otherwise). But they managed to get a new amendment through AND the legislative teeth put in place to effectively ban alcohol, something that more Americans at the time used (then and now actually) than guns. Supposedly Americans are upset at all the gun violence, yet you say it’s impossible to use the methods built into our system to do the same thing the temperance folks did. Can you explain that a bit more? Do you mean that there isn’t the public support for it (which is true) and thus you need to go around that more than the temperance folks did (which was quite a lot…and using some of the same tactics really)?
Yeah, that’s true enough, but if a radical Christian group took control they could make us officially a Christian state and perhaps ban, outlaw or at least stifle other religions. Part of the reason why there are your quasi-examples is simply because the US is mainly Christian in one form or another, but it’s non-denominational Christian (Christmas being a pretty generic holiday among Christians who view it differently depending on the sect…some don’t go for it at all on the Protestant side from what I understand), same with the money (which could be really any God or gods…you can take that one as you like, as long as you aren’t an agnatheist :p) and the chaplains. In any case, I’m fairly confident that if you stop parsing and actually think about it, there is bound to be at least one aspect to the Constitution you’d be reluctant to allow a minority group with an agenda to change by fiat instead of by the process established.
According to this, the phrase “at common law” in the seventh amendment is a near-meaningless qualifier that has been used to eviscerate the right to a civil jury trial:
http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/03/71.5.thomas.pdf
You could analogize this to the way a lot people want to use the militia clause of the second amendment to eviscerate the right to keep and bear arms.
I don’t have a big problem when judges, who were selected in a democratic process, choose to infringe to right to keep and bear arms, or ignore the $20 clause.
As for cases that could qualify, if we were to be consistent defenders of constitutional text, what about the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims having no jury trials? There must have been some complaints about this, but most supposed lovers of constitutional literalism ignore it.
Suppose someone were to conclude that by carefully following the Form 1040 instructions, they overpaid their income tax by $60. The seventh amendment would seem to give them a right to a jury trial, and saying that’s not a matter of common law is reasonably seen as a dodge (even if a wise one).
I hate this as well. People just assume that pro-gun folks are like a cross between Ted Cruz and Roscoe P. Coltrain when in fact 22% of Democrats and 35% of Independents are gun owners. On the other hand I have not met a lot of really conservative gun control folks (surely they exist but I can’t name one).
My generalization about gun control folks is that for the most part, they know little about guns. Its probably not fair but its a generalization and they are never fair.
Facts are stubborn things. When the level of violence (including gun violence is at or near historic lows, its really hard to mobilize people to make drastic changes in the face of determined resistance.
You know how many times the Supreme Court has declined to hear cases on abortion or voting rights or torture? Does this mean the Supreme Court is going to reverse Roe or eliminate voting rights or sanction torture?
IIRC Chicago lost the gun control case that now requires Chicago to let their citizens own guns. Is this what Chicago wanted too? You are reading too much into Thomas’s disappointment that SCOTUS didn’t take the case. Why do you think he is disappointed? Do you imagine he is disappointed because the court would have ruled in favor of Chicago or against them?
declining cert is not law at all, constitutional or otherwise. Its tea leaf reading.
And we have a winner! You, my friend, are absolutely right. If I want 20k rounds of ammo, ten semi-auto rifles then that’s what I want. If you want a single shot shotgun and a single box of shells, well that’s great. What’s next, someone will think I have too many cylinders on my engine, too many bedrooms in my home? How about each of us worry about what he thinks he needs and not worry about what you think your neighbor needs or doesn’t need. As long as I possess something that is legal and I act lawfully with it, it’s really none of your business how many I have.
Next?
Because of increasing fuel mileage standard, the V8 is dying. If we abide by the new global warming agreement, the V6 will likely die as well, except for antiques.
I presume you agree that there is no constitutional right to any particular number of cylinders, or, for that matter, a gasoline engine. Did you just concede that the real issue isn’t the Constitution, but desire to not be hemmed in by lawful regulations designed to achieve legitimate public purposes (such as less pollution and fewer people killed by guns)?
Do you understand what “common law” is?
Do you understand what statutory law is?
You don’t, but are perfectly willing to offer an opinion that following the 1040 instructions is somehow triggering a matter of common law.
Is that about right?
Ok. What specific common law claim do you feel is implicated when one overpays one’s federal taxes by $60 when following the 1040 instructions?
Here’s the first sentence of the Wikipedia article on it:
If so, and since all law, and all law cases, are judged through the prism of common law, the seventh amendment applies to all civil actions.
I realize that there is another definition – laws that are customary but never were reduced to statute – and suppose that’s the one you prefer. Since we nowadays have statutes up the wazoo (see http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/), this definition would mean that the seventh amendment right to a jury trial has been rendered null and void by federal and state legal codifying. Is that your view? If so, I’d say that, by a similar principle, any state can render the second amendment null and void by abolishing the militia.
The real issue is that firearms are legal in this country. I was responding to the statement that why does anyone need X amount of rounds or X number of firearms. My point was that as long as they are legal and I am lawfully using those items, what business is it of anyones how many I have. Just as it is no one’s business if I drive an eight cylinder gas guzzler or I have a twenty room house.
If you only want one firearm or none, 10k rounds of ammunition or one shell, an 8 cylinder engine or a hybrid, etc… Tan by all means knock yourself out. But how much I chose to have of a legal product used in a lawful manner is my business and my business alone.
What??
I don’t even understand what the hell that sentence means. “Judged through the prism of common law?”
That is a meaningless statement.
Some civil actions are certainly grounded in common law. Some civil actions arise because a statute provides a legal remedy. The two are distinct.
For example, there is a common law tort of negligence. If I sue you in Virginia for damages that I claim I suffered as the result of your negligence, that’s an action fairly described as at common law.
But if I sue you for false advertising under the Lanham Act, that’s a cause of action created by statute.
Do you see the difference? I have no idea what kind of “prism” you imagine that suit might use, but it’s still a statutory cause of action, not a common law one.
Just…stop. Seriously. Your pride in your ignorance is astonishing.
We do have lots of statutes, but we have plenty of common law torts that have not been abrogated by statute. And the Second Amendment does not require the existence of a militia for its protections to exist.