Posted on 02/10/2014 12:09:17 PM PST by Texas Fossil
You might think the question would be settled by now, but the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to opine on whether the Second Amendment right to “bear” arms for self-defense extends outside the home.
We may soon get an answer. Lyle Denniston, writing for the Constitution Daily, reports about two gun rights cases that may get a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Both cases, dealing with restrictions on the ability of minors to possess weapons in public, hinge on the difference between the right to “keep” a gun and a right “bear” one. The National Rifle Association thinks the issue is ripe for Supreme Court review. The justices are expected to discuss the cases next week and may then decide whether to grant review.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
The problem isn’t lawyers. The problem is lawyers who are judicial activists for an evolving Constitution as a living document that suits their agendas.
That being said, there is no requirement that a Supreme Court Justice be a lawyer. The President, with consent of the Senate, can fill vacancies with non-lawyers.
You are aware that in order to be nominated to the Supreme Court, you must be “approved” by the ABA.
I have tested over 1,000 people, and about 17% fall into the “influencer” category. these are people who get their ego satisfaction from controlling others. Most Lawyers, Policians, Journ O Listers, and entertainers are in this group. Problem is that 60% plus folks fall into the go along get along (security & compliance oriented) Doctors, Engineers, constsruction workers, programers, etc.
A vast majority of people would kill another person if a person of “Authority” told them too, and they believed that it was to the countries best interest.
It’s funny – I’m running into more and more people who have that same attitude – me included.
A lot of us are to the point of where we don’t care any more.
There’s a reason the preamble to the Constitution says WE THE PEOPLE.
At some point we’re just going to tell the Feral Government to stuff where the sun don’t shine and leave US the H.. alone.
The problem is WE THE PEOPLE are infiltrated with voting parasites. We have to deal with these scum at all levels, but, hey, the Feral Government is a great start!!
They didn't. The Heller decision did not completely negate the ruling in Miller, it simply enlarged it.
The actual meaning of the Miller decision is that arms which are useful to a Militia are protected by the Second Amendment.
The Heller decision adds that arms which are useful for self-defense are also protected. And because the Heller case challenged the law prohibiting keeping of functional handguns in one's home, the Heller Court specifically addressed that case.
In no way did the Heller Court suggest that self-defense outside the home is not protected. Nor did the Court suggest that arms useful to a Militia are not protected.
The Court simply limited itself to the legal issues necessary to decide Heller's suit. Specifically, does the Second Amendment apply to individuals? Yes. Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's ability to defend himself in his home with arms? Yes. Does the Second Amendment specifically protect the keeping of a functional handgun in the home for immediate use in self-defense. Yes.
The Court pointed out that Heller did not ask to be relieved of the burden of registration or licensing and so the Court did not address that issue. Just the mention of this leads me to believe that the majority just might have banned licensing and registration in this case had it been at issue.
I seem to recall the Third Amendment is specifically about one’s house, and doesn’t apply, to, for instance, one’s barn. Which actually strengthens the argument that the Second Amendment is not limited to one’s home, since the Founders could easily have included the words “within a citizen’s home”, but did not.
I thought through the situation some years ago and concluded that the only choice I had was to withdraw my consent to be governed. The Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, were being deliberately and systematically ignored.
I saw somebody else claim that recently and he received much the same response I did; that is, it doesn't matter whether you consent or not.
But I disagree. My withdrawal of consent has the same moral force as that of our Founders when they wrote the Declaration of Independence. If I obey the law today it is not because I value the benefit to others. It is solely because it benefits me. I think that distinction is very important.
Will I ever consent to be governed again in the future? Perhaps. The Heller decision is a step in the right direction. The foot-dragging in the lower courts has, however, continued. We'll see.
The ABA review is a custom not a requirement. After the Bork fiasco, a conservative president should ignore or even pointedly ridicule the ABA as partisan hacks.
Here's the Third Amendment:
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
The phrase "quartered in any house" may have implications beyond just where a soldier's bed is located. Who feeds the soldier? Who prepares the food? Whose pots or cookware is used. Who supplies the fuel for cooking? Who launders the soldier's clothing? Who tends to the soldier if he is sick?
The real meaning would have to be found by examining what abuses the Founders were trying to eliminate. It's not at all clear to me that such abuses would be avoided simply by having the soldier sleep in the barn. From what I have read there have been no court cases addressing the Third Amendment.
The supreme court and everybody else can deliberate and discuss, ad nauseum, the meaning of “bear” in the context of the 2nd Amendment but it will not change what all clear-thinking, Constitution-loving citizens know to be true.
In ante-bellum Texas, even slaves had the right to keep and bear arms.
Antebellum Texas was remarkably unlike most other Southern states, but resembled the Northeastern states, in its lack of infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.[78] No one in Texas, regardless of race, was denied the right to possess or carry arms in any manner. At a time when slaves in most states were legally disarmed, there was no such law in Texas, and whites, Mexicans, and blacks could wear concealed arms.
The Texas code as of 1859 shows that only the misuse of weapons was punishable. Apparently the legislature recognized that it had no power to regulate even concealed weapons since the constitutional convention of 1845 defeated proposals to authorize such a (p.646)power. Duelling was prohibited.[79] The slave code contains no arms regulations, but the homicide provisions provided that it was permissible to kill a slave only “[w]hen a slave uses weapons calculated to produce death, in any case other than those in which he may lawfully resist with arms.”[80]
http://www.guncite.com/journals/haltex.html
Using that “logic”, the First Amendment should apply only to the print media, since we didn’t have radio, TV, cable or internet in the 1700s.
Thank you sir, that is a very interesting piece of Texas History.
The Fatal Sequence
The historical cycle seems to be: From bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more.
Henning Webb Prentis, Jr.
Withdrawing my consent to be governed – I like that.
I’ll put this in starker terms – if they don’t have to follow the rule of law, than neither do we.
This is exactly what our Founders did and they enumerated the reasons. They considered the throwing off of tyranny not just a right, but a duty.
If the Founders were not bound due to any consent provided by their antecedents, then how could we possibly be bound by their consent?
In the case of our Founders, the tyrant was relatively free to make war against them. Today our government is only able to tyrannize us by ignoring the constraints of the Constitution. It is not we who are dissolving the bonds which have joined us; it is the government by ignoring the clear language of the compact between us.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security
Thomas Jefferson
The SCOTUS, in a different case declared ONLY GOLD and SILVER to be real money, not this paper stuff we have now.
A different court in a different time.
But, yes, our current “money” is not a stable medium of exchange. The value constantly decreases because it is constantly diluted by the printing press.
It is a paradox, sound money limits growth potential. But fractional reserve banking expands the potential, but the cavot is, the bankers are not smart enough to properly use that leverage power.
Investors? Well, at one time they used their own money. The adept prospered, others failed. Now, they use other people’s money, they are just like the bankers.
Note, not all bankers are like that. Regional investment bankers tend to be more connected. Not like the “too big to fail” Global “bankers” /sarcasm.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.