Me no say you did. Me only discuss issue in general.
<>deleted. Moderator wants name calling toned down.
In a direct response to a quote from that poster. You can see why that might have confused him.
Ok, but we already have in place almost every conceivable regulation and oversight short of banning classes of firearms. What do you propose? If “assault weapons” and “Saturday Night Specials” can be banned (especially the former on the grounds of being “too dangerous” for civilian ownership), then what in principle couldn’t?
What I propose is what I have already proposed, and what I have proposed has jack shit to do bans. In fact, I believe that what I propose will actually strengthen the right of the individual to bear arms by eliminating that beginning phrase that seems to confuse some.
I didn’t read them, because I was just trying to think about what the text itself means. But that’s not to say the history of the amendment shouldn’t be taken into account, I guess.
There doesn’t need to be one–it’s simply what the construction means.
“The boulder being about to hit Jane, you must push her out of the way.” But the boulder’s actually about to hit Henry. Does the person issuing the command really intend for you to push Jane out of the way anyway?
An even better analogy:
“It being awesome to enjoy the sun on our faces, walking freely, the right of the people to leave their houses shall not be infringed.”
That’s a command attached to a justification. If the justification fails to be true, the command may no longer be in effect, cf the henry/jane example.
You…you…you SCALIAN!
“Given A, you must do B so long as A exists” certainly clearly connects A and B in the way you suggest. The second amendment, however, does not. There are no qualifying words, no “we must because of…” or “…only so long as,” except the ones we infer from thin air in contradiction of the background history mentioned and the unqualified words actually offered: “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Hey, I just use it as one strategy among many. (Of course so does Scalia, but he doesn’t admit it.)
This is not correct. cf. Article IV.2.3. Rights in general appear to have been somewhat selective.
Please provide a link to the published case. I have searched the Fourth Circuit’s database for that case and the “Kelly” party involved and have been unsuccessful in finding anything.
I would be very interested in reading it and trying to understand their legal reasoning. I don’t see any way such a result could be possible with the standing law as stated by SCOTUS. Of course such ignoring has been done before in the 1st and 3rd Circuits, which gave us the “militia right” and “state’s right” interpretations back in 1942, dismissing the determinations of US v Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
And that means nothing but that the fundamental principles won out defeating instances where government’s actions were violating those principles. The Constitution was amended to remove that clause.
Having a difference of opinion over this point, the origin of rights (the ‘chicken or the egg’ dilemma) is unavoidable when leftists and Constitutionalists are debating government but we can see how these principles have been enforced over the years . . .
The Supreme Court has never wavered from the principles that government is not the origin of rights; that rights pre-exist the establishment of the Constitution and that they are reservations of powers not granted to government by the people via that compact (with some exactingly, expressly reaffirmed in the Bill of Rights).
[ul]
[li]“The constitution expressly declares, that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . .” VANHORNE’S LESSEE v. DORRANCE, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]“The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . .” – ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]“Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted.” – BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. – UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)[/li][/ul]
[ul]
[li]“[N]either the Bill of Rights nor the laws of sovereign States create the liberty which the Due Process Clause protects. The relevant constitutional provisions are limitations on the power of the sovereign to infringe on the liberty of the citizen. . . . Of course, law is essential to the exercise and enjoyment of individual liberty in a complex society. But it is not the source of liberty,. . .” – DENNIS C. VACCO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK, et al., PETITIONERS v. TIMOTHY E. QUILL et al. No. 95-1858, (1997)[/li][/ul]
Government is first established to protect the citizen’s pre-existing rights; rights that the people fully retained without ever granting government any power to harm them.
That includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms without any appeal or reference to the words, punctuation, syntax or grammar of the 2nd Amendment nor any later “interpretation” of the words, punctuation, syntax or grammar of the 2nd Amendment.
Did you actually read Robertson v. Baldwin before quoting from it? Hell, did you even read the text you quoted?
Apparently it’s unpublished. The case is United States Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit No. 05-4775, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus MICHAEL J. KELLY, SR., Here’s the .PDF: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/05-4775/054775.u-2011-03-14.pdf?1301261256
Long story short, they expressly adopted the collective theory of the 2nd Amendment, and invoked the all-mighty Interstate Commerce Clause.
BTW: you earlier posted that the subject of “how we got here” was too long to post; but if you’d like to PM or email me, I’d like to hear your thoughts on the subject.
Yes I have read it and yes, I have read the excerpt I quoted.
Do you have a point to make or are you once again just displaying your profound deficiency in reading comprehension and will you once again show cowardice when challenged about it?
Just to refresh your memory:
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
Well regulated (Phrase), well (Adjective) followed by past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
- Endless, pointless argument about a poorly defined concept.
- Not well regulated
Abatis, you’re coming close to breaking the rules against personal insults here.
This case has nothing to say on present conditions or what the constitutionality would be of a future enactment of an “Assault Weapons” Ban. That’s because of the timeline; the charges were brought in 2002 under 18 USC, 922(v)(1) – AKA “the Assault Weapons Ban” which was in effect then. The 4th Circuit ruled in 2007 after the AWB had expired in 2004 but prior to Heller). It is no mystery why the case isn’t published.
The 2nd Amendment reasoning has been invalidated by SCOTUS in Heller and Heller could be argued to vacate any claim of nebulous, undefined power under the commerce clause.
I’ll compose something and post it up, probably later tonite, I have some meetings this afternoon.
I realize that which is why I substantiated my opinion with a quote.
The passive-aggressive styles of some here don’t command deference.
[QUOTE=Abatis]
This board has an easy to use quote function. please use it if you are going to present me as making a particular statement, especially one as ridiculous as that.
[/QUOTE]
As you wish. I didn’t see your previous post. Apologies for my “cowardice”, but then it’s a little odd to see people ask other people to cite to their own words.
Here’s what I said you said:
Here’s you actually saying it.
Perhaps you and previous you would like to debate the issue amongst yourselves (and look up “passive-aggressive” while you’re at it.)
Here’s what you quoted:
[QUOTE=Abatis]
“The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . .” – ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)
[/QUOTE]
Here’s what you said it means:
[QUOTE=Abatis]
That includes the right of the people to keep and bear arms without any appeal or reference to the words, punctuation, syntax or grammar of the 2nd Amendment nor any later “interpretation” of the words, punctuation, syntax or grammar of the 2nd Amendment.
[/QUOTE]
When, exactly, did we inherit the right to keep and bear arms from our English ancestors - one they have never enjoyed?