OT- 2nd Amendment IS an individual right-Officially

Ah, well, that's what was implied by the author that Gunner originally quoted, who said that it's NOW A FACT.

I'm all for the First Amendment, but people ought to be held down and made to hear the facts when they make so many stupid statements in something that's published and bylined.

-- Ed Huntress

Firstly, you appear to have forgotten what you were challenging me about. It wasn't the individual right business. Regarding federal law, it's my amateur opinion that it *does* prevent the federal government from interfering with the individual right. And, like Tribe, I also believe that, with some qualifications, and given an activist interpretation that has to reach back through the tea leaves and the 14th Amendment to get there, that it also probably confers a right over the heads of the states. This is not a simple issue, however, and I've said little about it. I may have to re-read Tribe on the subject. The status of the law today is that the states have full authority to regulate gun ownership. As FindLaw will tell you, it is recognized as "good law" as of this date.

What you challenged me about was my statement that it's "mostly a myth" that, as the author of the piece you originally quoted said, "The fact is the Second Amendment was specifically intended to provide American citizens with the tools necessary to rise up and overthrow an abusive government." I said it's "mostly a myth," because both the 2nd Amendment itself and the various state constitutional provisions regarding gun ownership say nothing about it. They say it is for protecting the security of the state. The business about rising up and overthrowing the government isn't mentioned in the constitutions. In fact, to the extent it's talked about, it's in terms of protecting against "insurrections."

You've probably never read the briefs opposing the 5th Circuit's rulings, or those recommending that certiorari be denied over a 9th Circuit ruling of about the same time. You ought to look them up. They're also very convincing scholarship.

Tribe didn't get the respect he has for nothing. I seriously doubt if your friends who tell you he reached this decision with "self-admitted disgust" know much about Tribe's other writings. He's a brilliant and penetrating analyst, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court needs. And that's because no Court can escape "activism" today, for reasons that may be apparent to you since we've had a couple of years of these discussions. An originalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment leads to the conclusion that the most respected originalist Constitutional scholar (Robert Bork) has reached: that it's all about the militia, and that there is no individual right.

He reached that decision because a real originalist has two characteristics. First, he relies strongly on the words of the document and the next tier of authority, which is the debates over the Bill of Rights that occurred in the First Congress. As you know, that debate about the 2nd was all about the militia.

The second characteristic of a real originalist is that he limits his interpretation of the 14th to what its writers actually intended: that the states would not be allowed to circumvent suffrage and equal treatment under the law of then-newly-freed slaves. That's all it was about. Using the 14th as a reason to extend authority over the states -- as, by example, enforcing the 1st or 2nd Amendment as an individual right that the states can't abridge -- requires a certain amount of activist interpretation. Actually, quite a lot of it.

Finally, I don't recall that the DOJ brief said that the USSC "has ruled on it some 20 odd times in the past, all of which supported the individual rights interp." If it did, the brief is wrong.

-- Ed Huntress

As you will notice in the first sections of the brief...making sure the people can revolt against a tyrannical government was discussed many times, and plenty of examples were given to that effect.

As to infringing on 2nd Amendment Rights, additional examples were given where the courts ruled in many individual cases, such could NOT be constitutional.

I further presented cites from Article 4 and 6 indicating that no state could change or disregard ANY portion of the constitution. Being found "good law" only shows how far the rot has spread.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio

Ill be sure to mention that to your editor.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio

If Rehnquist wrote it, you would still be pissing and moaning.

Btw..hows the new rifles working out?

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio

] Btw...if you value Rehnquist so highly....

The Rehnquist Court

Since William Rehnquist was appointed Chief Justice in

1986, six different opinions have addressed the Second Amendment. The authors of the opinions include the small left wing of the Court (Justices Stevens and Ginsburg), the Court?s right wing (Justices Thomas and Rehnquist), and the Court?s centrist Justice O?Connor. Every one of the opinions treats the Second Amendment as an individual right. Except for Justice Breyer, every sitting Supreme Court Justice has joined in at least one of these opinions?although this joinder does not prove that the joiner necessarily agreed with what the opinion said about the Second Amendment. Still, five of the current Justices have written an opinion in which the Second Amendment is considered an individual right, and three more Justices have joined such an opinion.

Smile, be happy.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio

Not a single one from actual law or from a single constitution, state or federal. All of it was from political tracts -- editorials. The constitutions they quoted contradicted your point flatly. They said it was for security of the *states*, and for protection from rebellions and usurpations.

Without starting another thread, that's one of the two fatal flaws of the

5th Circuit's "Emerson" decision, and of this DOJ brief. They mix-and-match actual laws and the various political arguments that preceded them. Which one is the Bush argument, and which one is the Kerry argument? One way to decide is on the basis of which one made it into an actual US law or constitutional provision. That's the way that holds the most authority under our jurisprudence -- and it's the way any "originalist" will insist that such decisions are made.

I don't know what this is in reference to. Are you making a new statement, or responding to one of mine?

Give it a break, Gunner. Are you trying to tell us that the Supreme Court had the issue of state's rights all wrong for over 100 years, and that the doctrines of incorporation under the 14th Amendment were unnecessary, because the federal government already had the power to enforce all of the Bill of Rights over the heads of the states anyway, because of Article 6?

Where did you get this great insight? Why do you suppose the USSC missed this obvious point, while you, Gunner, has it all figured out?

Read again the quotes I posted from the debates in Congress a few days ago, on the 1st Amendment, and look at the citations in Barron v. Baltimore (1833). That's one of the "pre-Civil-War" decisions that the DOJ apparently things so highly of.

The bottom line is that the Bill of Rights was demanded by the states, as a guarantee that their authority and the rights of their citizens would not be usurped by the new federal government. Thus, there is nothing in the BofR that's worded like the 13th and 14th Amendments, in which those rights were first applied over the heads of the states -- explicitly.

-- Ed Huntress

First, all rights have restrictions. That's what the "compelling state interest" line in many court decisions is all about. It's the one that keeps us from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater and claiming a 1st Amendment right.

The 2nd has had exactly one positive Circuit Appeals Court ruling in recent years, and a "compelling state interest" was involved in that case. It was a guy who was under a restraining order for threatening his wife. So that case, too, addressed limitations on the right, as the 5th Circuit Court had to remand the case or something like that.

I don't recall what Tribe was talking about regarding the states' right issue, but it's still a tough one. It still has to be detached from the militia issue. That's why the DOJ went to such lengths to argue that it wasn't about the militia. That's where the weight of precedent is going to demand a very activist Supreme Court decision, if the 2nd is to be incorporated under the 14th.

The only decision about that that I can think of is some obiter dicta from the Miller case. If the high Court decides in favor of an individual right, they'll probably have to address the question at the same time. That makes it even more difficult to get a case before the Court.

The case is going to be tied up in principles of jurisprudence that have Latin names. See "stare decisis."

They have a mental rash that comes from excessive bathroom reading of _American Rifleman_ and gun blogs. If they manage to get a Supreme Court case heard, a lot of that will clear up.

Ed Huntress

We DO have the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Other laws come into effect if there are damages.

It can no more be detached from the militia issue, than eggs can be from a cake. Its part of the ingredients.

The Miller decision would be used to show that nukes are likely to NOT be suitable for militia usage. On the other hand, fighter aircraft, arty and so forth would be, and historically armed vehicles have been used as such.

spoken like the true drooling mouth breathing idiot the Noid has proven himself to be over the years.

And if the SCOTUS rules that its an idividual right (again..after doing so at least 20 times before) will the Noid and his ilk slit their bellies? You at least should cut off at least one finger Yakuza style.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where." Scipio

Shows how much you know - I don't think the path is wrong, but I am *sure* you have declared victory prematurely. FWIW I doubt Rehnquist will be the one to write it. He will retire soon I suspect.

No new rifles since you last heard from me - but I've been very very pleased with the Marble Arms tang sight that I put on the winchester. I'm grouping a good deal better now, and I like being able to adjust for different ammo on the fly. For example, the winchester dynapoints shoot about an inch and a half lower than the Federals. That's about four clicks in elevation. I haven't figured out how to tweak for the CCI stingers though as my daughter keeps swiping them all and shooting them.

I did purchase a Williams peep sight for her Marlin which was much easier to fit than the marbles was - it just mounts to the scope grooves on the receiver. However it's going to need a taller front sight to make it useable.

Our local range has closed for the holidays, and then they are going to close it again to re-do it. They're going to remove all the soil around the target areas, to extract the lead. Then they're going to re-locate it farther into the woods and install a steel backstop and a sand trap underneath, so they can rake it out in future. So they may be closed from Jan to March to do that work.

Jim

If my aunt had wheels, she'd be a teacart. Come back and start this thread up again when you have that ruling from Rhenquist &tc.

In the meantime you're just tripping over your own feet.

Jim

It would appear that you cannot comprehend the Conclusion drawn in the Brief.

Tom

ok it is in article 1 section 10 not 8 "Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. "

that keep troops part, that is the states right to have a military force with the consent of congress.

people is plural, it refers to a group of individuals. as a group people have powers and authorities not right, individuals have rights. and at the time the admendment was written "well-regulated" refered to having the tools and equipment necessary to do the assigned task not bound by numerous laws and regulations. beside how can a group "keep and bear" unless by the individuals. naything else is by the government and covered in article. and there is no mention of organized in admendment 2.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

just because through fear of what someone might do with a machie gun, they uphold unconstitutional laws does not make them right. to accept that premise means accepting the idea that suspected terrorists can be helded without due process, may be required to sign confessions, and other such infringments and deemed necessary to the illusion of security.

if you'll read jefferson, paine, franklin and others with an 1880's dictionary to understand the meanings of the words and phrases of the day you will see the constitution in a whole new light. our founding fathers were not afraid of what their neighbors might do, but were willing to let them think and act on what was right for themselves with as little government interfence as possible.

besides as patrick henry said when asked who comprised the militia "we the people are the militia"

Tell it to the judge.

The DOJ was really working hard at it. Did you read the brief?

What about the old Little John tactical nuke? They only weighed 150 lb. You could slip one under your bed.

You could show up for militia duty, pushing one in a grocery cart. That ought to qualify, huh?

-- Ed Huntress

Ed, When Gunner empties his cart where would he then put his possessions? Hope all you goof offs are enjoying the holiday season.

It has a special holster. There's still plenty of room left for canned water, insect recipes, and so on. It's the Abercrombie & Fitch version.

BTW, I think it was the Davy Crockett that you could slip under your bed, not the Little John. With a sub-kiloton yield but a range of only 2.5 miles (some versions maxed at 1.25 miles), it threatened to roast the people who fired it. So it was never popular with the troops.

-- Ed Huntress

More like a saddle bag sort of arrangement wouldn't you think? Weapon on one side counter balanced by a lead copy of the constitution on the other? You wouldn't want your cart following over during the firing sequence you know.

I remember when the Little John came out. I was about 13, and a story about it appeared in Pop Mechanics, or one of those magazines. They were deployed in Korea. I could have sworn that the Little John was the man-carriable one, though. Maybe the magazine got them mixed up.

At the time, I thought it was insane. It was the first time I realized my government may be run by crazy people. Two or three guys could run around in the bush with a nuclear missile, and fire it themselves. It's stuck with me ever since.

Of course, that's before I learned much about the 2nd Amendment, and realized the existential possibilities of it all. Remember the protagonist in _The Stranger_, who shot and killed somebody for no reason? Imagine the story if he'd had a Davy Crockett!

-- Ed Huntress

What do you suppose ever happened to the things? I'll just bet we made a bunch and if we did, so did the Rooski's. Pretty messy deal if one suddenly showed and went off. Man portable Nukes - sounds like a Curt Lemay original to me.