Exactly wrong. They said what they meant. You so badly want a different result that you have to overlook or dismiss that.
That’s true, the NRA has such control of Congress, and the minds of people who badly want the Constitution to mean something other than what it does, that I certainly agree it isn’t going to change any time soon.
That’s what it says. Deal with it. If you find yourself having to dismiss the parts of the Constitution you find inconvenient as yammering and yada yada, what else in it *do *you have any respect for?
Tell us, if you don’t think the framers intended half of the amendment itself to mean anything, why do you think they put it in there?
And it is immediately followed by “of a free State”. Inconvenient for you, I know, but there it is.
Are you really that unclear as to the difference between repelling a mugger and suppressing an organized insurrection? The Constitution makes clear the people’s government’s right and responsibility to do the latter. The former is something you have to *want *it to mean.
But there isn’t any valid argument that the declaratory clause modifies / conditions / qualifies the restrictive clause, because the right to arms isn’t granted by the 2nd thus the existence of the right in no manner dependent upon the Constitution (or 2nd Amendment in particular).
As **I said last page ** to someone saying only arms used by a government force are protected under the 2nd Amendment (which no collective right endorser replied to):
[/INDENT]
I would enjoy your explanation (or anyone else’s) for how you can maintain your opinion while the SCOTUS has consistently held (for going on 140 years) that such a belief is NOT legitimate.
“Not in any manner dependent upon the Constitution” means that the right can not be said to be dependent upon, qualified by, or conditioned upon, the words of the 2nd (e.g., “well regulated”) or dependent upon, qualified by, or conditioned upon, a structure that is itself, ENTIRELY dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, e.g., the organized militia (and/or a citizens enrollment status in the militia).
Prove to me SCOTUS is wrong or that I’m misinterpreting / misapplying what SCOTUS has held.
Jesus said “Suffer the little children to come unto me”. Obviously that means we’re supposed to use corporal punishment to raise our children to be moral. It’s right there in the Bible, why do you keep denying it?
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Exactly wrong. They said what they meant. You so badly want a different result that you have to overlook or dismiss that.
[/QUOTE]
Naw. Nice try though (ok…not really, but perhaps someone who has never done this dance before will think so). But I actually bothered to read the writings of the authors of the 2nd, especially the guy who did the original draft, instead of, well, reading the text one day and deciding what it meant. Which is what you did. And since this has all been played out before, and I know you’ve been shown the cites and taken through the logic in the past, I know you are immune to any of this so I won’t bother.
Boohoo. So, instead you will do it the other way. Yeah, I know. I know that you know as well.
It began federally in 1942 in two lower federal court opinions that ignored and dismissed what SCOTUS stated in Cruikshank and Presser and Miller and changed the ability of the private citizen to seek remedy in the courts by altering the status of the citizen before the courts .
In Miller, only the gun and its usefulness / value in battle or its commonality in use by citizens determined if the gun’s possession and use by a private citizen was protected under the 2nd.
In Cases v US, even though the court acknowledged the arm in question met the “Miller test” for 2ndA protection, the court held that its use was not in “preparation for a military career” . . . Thus the “militia right” interpretation of the 2nd was hatched and the status of the citizen and his mindset in using the arm became the protection criteria.
In US v Tot, the court just decided to decide that:
[INDENT]“It is abundantly clear both from the discussions of this amendment contemporaneous with its proposal and adoption and those of learned writers since that this amendment, unlike those providing for protection of free speech and freedom of religion, was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power.”[/INDENT]
And thus the “state’s right” interpretation was born . . .
These LOWER FEDERAL COURT opinions stood as “precedent” for 66 years. SCOTUS never embraced any permutation of any “collective right” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment but other federal circuits and state courts ran with these new interpretations and used them to try to extinguish claims of 2nd Amendment protections by private citizens in the courts of the USA . . . Thus, the protection of the 2nd Amendment for the citizenry WAS “nearly interpreted out of existence”.
Heller in 2008 just re-affirmed SCOTUS opinion and slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold and invalidated these “collective right” interpretations. Heller did not disturb or rewrite any Supreme Court opinion on the subject.
So, in the grand scheme you are correct; with SCOTUS there has never been any variation in interpretation of the 2nd but that doesn’t mean that significant damage wasn’t done in the lower federal courts and especially state courts because of Cases and Tot – and their illegitimate progeny of dozens of case that cite them which are now invalid or infirm.
EVERYONE back away from accusations of dishonesty.
Obviously, everyone thinks that their position is the correct one, but there is plenty of room for disagreement without claiming that one’s opponent is being dishonest.
We have posters who believe they have a constitutional right to insurrection. Timothy McVeigh was an insurrectionist. They believe that they have a right to do what he did, and that that right can never be taken away, for it is in “nature.”
And in the sense that yes, you are technically able to go out and blow stuff up, you still can. And the law can still put you to death.
I don’t believe anybody here has ever held McVeigh up as an example of anything but a murderer. Please link to the post if you have an example of otherwise.
Honestly, I kind of wish the USSC would just say “it has become clear over the years that the Second Amendment is written in such a profoundly unclear fashion that this court cannot, in good faith, use its wording to meaningfully attribute any restriction or power to the Federal Government until its intent is clarified via further amendment to the document.”
It would probably be seen, perhaps not wrongly, as a judicial power grab, but we already had Marbury v Madison so what’s new?
Indeed, at times the SCOTUS gave the impression of bending over backwards to try to avoid having to rule on the issue. It’s almost like the justices were saying "But…but… we’d have to either declare an article of the Bill of Rights a dead letter, or else say that you can’t ban guns!. It took the Heller case- with the most egregious gun ban in the country and no way to rule the case as a states’ rights matter- to back the SC into a corner. And even then the ruling sounded like “Wellll- ok, you can’t really flatly ban gunsBUT WAIT! Don’t misunderstand us! We’re not saying every gun law in the nation is voided!”
The idea that possessing weapons isn’t a privilege graciously bestowed (or not) by government IS revolutionary. Possibly the most radical thing to come out of the American War of Independence. But governments being what they are, successive generations of leaders began to regret the Founders liberalism (in the original sense of the word), and especially after immigration and leftist radicalism became a problem starting in the latter-19th century, they began to find ways to declare that some animals are more equal than others.
Sheesh, typo. I stand corrected to “nearly interpreted out of existence”.
It ain’t a strawman. “Nearly interpreted out of existence” IMHO means that the private ownership of firearms in the US would be at best extremely difficult, if not impossible. Otherwise, it’s the Wayne LaPierre / NRA playbook that any attempt to enact additional controls on private ownership is a slippery slope that ends with Americans enslaved by either the government or a foreign power. Me, I disagree with that premise. YMMV.
But thank you for clarifying that had Heller gone the other way, you don’t think that your legal ownership of firearms would have been at risk. (And I’m not trying to put words in your mouth so please correct me what personal impact Heller 4-5 would have had on you.)
This is a ridiculous misinterpretation of the statements made in this thread. Nobody said anything about the execution of insurrection, only the right to maintain the tools used in insurrection. There is a difference there.
You and I must have a different understanding of what a strawman is. You state you are adding meaning that wasn’t included in the statement you are responding to. You talk of private ownership of firearms but that’s only coming from you. You talk of confiscation but that’s only coming from you. You talk of enslavement but that’s only coming from you. It is the definition of a strawman. Why do you feel it’s necessary to add to the fact pattern? You’ve been told repetedely your interpretation is not accurate.
You do the same thing with the 4-5 hypothetical. My right to arms in CA is still at risk so if Heller went the other way it would have been worse. Right now standard mags are illegal to possess in at least 2 major cities aND ilegal to purchase state wide. We still have an AWB. There is no right to carry. No new semi auto pistols are legal to sell. There’s more too. Without Heller we surely wouldn’t have had Peru ta. We wouldn’t have had the 10 day waiting period be stuck down for people who already possess guns. Without Heller the landscape is much different.
This doesn’t mean your hyperbole comes to pass but it would be different.
It is important to you the wishes of our Founding Fathers as enshrined by law be respected. I agree. You should have the right to own a musket. That fundamental right is integral to all that follows, to wit, providing security to our nation in service of a militia, well regulated or otherwise. I also agree, you must not be in a militia to own a musket, owning a musket is integral to allowing one to be in a militia.
Now, please explain how your position for modern weapons DOESN’T require another Amendment modifying the Second or describe it detail why it is good policy there are currently restrictions on modern arms at all.
To me, while the reluctance was frustrating, part of the blame falls on the gun rights side for not bringing good cases for cert appeal. To many cases were felons or others with some sort of encumbrance on their exercise of the right.
Heller was, as you note, a case with great facts which forced the Court to focus on the law. Even reading the dissents, there was agreement on the fundamental law - that the 2nd recognized and secured an individual right. The dissents went on to argue either that little fact didn’t matter or to argue for a lessened level of scrutiny to judge challenged gun law. Neither were compelling.
Scalia’s opinion reeks of his overblown ego. Heller should have been a three page opinion with no textual analysis. Heller should have just quoted SCOTUS precedent on the RKBA being a pre-existing right and the general rights theory that SCOTUS has recognized and enforced for 230 years (including the penumbral rights doctrine). As it stands, Scalia wasn’t assertive enough on the primary points of law and that has given judges just enough wiggle-room to twist or ignore the law and focus on making lemonade out of the facts before them (just look at the 2nd and 7th Circuits upholding AWB’s).
There has been a concerted effort to scrub from American thought on government, the intertwined principles of conferred powers and retained rights.
This is being done to instead instill in people an acceptance of second generation rights as being supported if not mandated by the US Constitution. These cultural, social and economic rights have their foundation in Marxist thought, not Lockean / Jeffersonian thought.
Today’s liberals need to be constantly reminded that Marx and Engels were not among the founding fathers. To dismiss the rights theory of the real founders / framers because you embrace an oppositional 20th Century political doctrine is not a strong debate position – which is why they so often choose to ignore the foundational principles and dismiss the Constitution as controlling.
I believe that if one can say with a straight face that we have the right to consent to be governed, a right to rescind that consent must also be recognized.
I believe the Constitution is a compact that only its creators, “We the People” can void.
If the government established by the Constitution becomes usurpers and exercises powers never granted to it and violates the principles of its establishment, it is clearly no longer - the government established by the Constitution - it is something else, something foreign to the Constitution.
It can not claim the protections of the compact (preemptive powers / supremacy / power to prosecute sedition & treason) and is subject to “We the People” rescinding our consent to be governed and reclaiming and taking back the powers originally conferred (with violence if necessary).
