Posted on 02/24/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
The Supreme Court refused on Monday, as it has done repeatedly in recent years, to settle the issue of whether Second Amendment rights to have a gun extend beyond the home. The Court, without comment, denied three new petitions — two filed by the National Rifle Association — seeking clarification on the scope of an individual’s right to have a gun for personal self-defense. In other orders, the Court did not accept any new cases for review, although it did hold over a number of cases it had examined for potential review.
Since the Court first ruled nearly six years ago that the Second Amendment protects a personal right to have a gun, it has issued only one further ruling — expanding that right so that it applies nationwide, to state and local gun control laws, as well as to federal laws. But, without exception, the Justices have turned aside every potential sequel, essentially leaving it to lower courts to continue to sort out variations on the right.
One thing seemed clear from the denial of review of two of the new cases, the NRA’s challenges: the Court is not, as yet, ready to stop lower courts from creating an entirely new group in society with less than full gun rights. In those cases, it was youths aged eighteen to twenty years old.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.com ...
You know, I noticed that the NRA was a petitioner in two of the cases and wondered if that had any bearing on the Court’s denial.
I Know, I know. One cannot presume anything from a denial. Yes, sensei. ;p
Careful what you wish for. The Gun-Free Schools Act, which the Supreme Court held unconstitutional in the Lopez case, was passed by Congress unanimously. If Congress had the power to nullify SCOTUS decisions, they would have overturned Lopez in a minute.
I think there should be a provision in the Constitution to allow a 3/4 vote of COngress or of the states to nullify or void a SCOTUS decision.
The SCOTUS hasn’t made many 2nd amendment decisions in its history, and the article indicates the most recent decisions were pro 2nd amendment. They are simply waiting for a large body of lower cases to develop that they can draw from before they rule further.
The Founders wrote it based on the comprehensive ability of an eight grader. The only purpose to try to derive 'meaning' from anything other than the plain language OF it is an attempt to marginalize it.
-----
If there can be no restriction then it is wrong to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by:
—Five year olds
Minors are under the protection of those that Created them...their parents.
Two of the others fall under War crimes- individuals of an opposing military force absolves anyone else of the obligation to acknowledge their Rights by their own actions.
The others concern individuals who commit or are in custody for crimes against the Law are protected by the entity holding them...it's why police departments get sued when a suspect comes to harm.
-----
Stop trying to pervert the Original Intent by defining established words by today's rules.
Why don't you look at the evidence instead? Courts have found...repeatedly, that the police have no legal liability for failing to protect someone. If that legal liability is not there, that also means the police (i.e. government) can have no legal authority to prevent you from protecting yourself...unless you believe anyone is obligated to stand there and be murdered.
You see, with Rights, comes Duties...and the Founders enumerated both the Right and the Duty for us to protect ourselves.
The Sixth!? I never would have guessed.
Not so. What was "plain language" to the writers may not be so plain to readers 220+ years later. Trying to understand the meaning of what was "plain language" then is an aid fighting those who would marginalize it by attaching a modern meaning to it. Shouting "Shall Not Be Infringed" isn't enough because they will claim that whatever you shout against is not an infringement because it is not included in the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". We have to be able to show otherwise and you've already indicated that some things aren't included by your words:
Those words admit restrictions on the Second Amendment right. Would you say any of those restrictions violate "Shall Not Be Infringed"? They also contradict your assertion: "... there can be no restriction. That's what makes it an acknowledged, absolute Right."
If we don't proactively determine and assert the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and do so with reason as well as emotion, others will do so and attempt to force their meaning on us.
Those exceptions being people who are not minors nor have their Right restricted due to their own actions, not because someone didn't hand their papers to some 'authority' fast enough or because some pencil-necked bureaucrat didn't like some poor sap's political bent.
----
If we don't proactively determine and assert the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" and do so with reason as well as emotion, others will do so and attempt to force their meaning on us.
Fair enough. Here's my unemotional and reasoned determination of the meaning of the words Right to Keep and bear arms'-
Forcing someone to remain helpless in the face of injury or certain death without any repercussions for forcing them to do so is an immoral act, thus the Right to keep...or have arms, and to take, or bear them where they will...whenever they will... in defense of themselves or others is an inalienable, Natural Right because even in Nature, animals will defend themselves and their offspring.
OR, we could just determine the common sense meaning like we're supposed to.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
― Thomas Jefferson / Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776
Outstanding! An acknowledgment of exceptions to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". And I take it that acknowledgment includes that a law in regard to such an exception, for instance a law forbidding the keeping and bearing of arms by someone justly imprisoned for a crime, would not violate "shall not be infringed".
As to the rest of your post, I don't disagree with it but I'm not sure it covers everything and it takes a different direction than I was thinking of. I might say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the right by which people may protect and defend their other rights. I'll have to think about that.
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.