Posted on 02/24/2014 3:33:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian
ironic, isn't it?
Thanks SCOTUS. What’s the thinking here.
ironic, isn’t it?
Thank goodness the dems haven’t tried to tax gun ownership
yet, I’d hate to see how they would rule on that.
“Once the SCOTUS is pack with liberal Justices, they will then hear the cases.”
That’s my fear as well. This could possibly be the most conservative SCOTUS will be for decades, sad as that is. They keep kicking these crucial issues down the road, and a more lefty Court will eventually be the one picking them up.
What do you think the NFA is?
Or, better yet, have a group of them form up and take roll — a militia roll.
Document it, then go to the firearms store, and have everyone try to buy a weapon… when the lawmen try to stop you, charge them with their interference with the militia.
(Most States have a definition for "militia" as something like all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45
— by forming up and having a formation, you are acting as a militia unit, which means that preventing these young men from purchasing their weapons is a direct and literal infringement of their right to keep and bear arms, under color of law and, if you can get the officer's supervisor involved, conspiracy against rights. Moreover, this shows that the "2nd Amendment applies [only] to militia" argument is a lie.)
It's not a riddle, but a problem. Most everyone puts the emphasis on "shall not be infringed", as you did in post 3. But what is it that shall not be infringed? Ok, it is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed", but what is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"? What are the scope, the boundaries, the constraints of the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
Words with a similar structure are: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" and "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" has boundaries, constraints and is limited in scope. The right does not extend so far as to allow a citizen who resides in Pennsylvania to vote in an election held in Ohio or New York, nor does it mean that a citizen of one county can vote in an election in another county even if both counties are in the same State. The right to vote is also age constrained.
Age constraint on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" seems to have been an issue proposed to SCOTUS. Is age such a constraint and if so how do we know so from the words alone? Some people say if one is old enough to join the military one is old enough to have Second Amendment rights, but how does one get that from the Second Amendment unless maybe one says it applies to the militia which I don't want to do. Why should not a five year old, as one of the people, have the right to keep and bear arms? You might say it is the right of the parents to decide that, although that's not indicated in the Second Amendment, but parents are not supposed to infringe on the Right to Life of a five year old so why should they infringe on ones Second Amendment right?
The words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" are not examined enough by those on our side, but those on the other side will do so. And when those on our side scream "shall not be infringed" the other side will say it's not an infringement because it was not included in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" to begin with, and our side will not have an adequate response.
I hope you slept well.
The NRA made a big deal over these cases-- understandably, because it's the named plaintiff in two of the three-- but they actually weren't that significant compared to other 2nd Amendment issues that are out there, and there isn't much split in the lower courts.
The two NRA cases are both out of the 5th Circuit (one of the more conservative federal appeals courts, covering MS, LA & TX), and both involved state laws that limited gun rights of people under 21. The NRA argued that the cutoff should be 18, not 21, but it's hard to see that as a Second Amendment issue as opposed to a rights-of-minors issue.
The third case was similarly decided in the lower courts on standing grounds, not on Second Amendment grounds. (The question is who is the correct party to challenge the laws about mail-order shipment of firearms.)
There is a much bigger set of Second Amendment cases moving through the lower courts now, which I predict will get decided by SCOTUS. That is whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a gun outside your home and, if so, whether it protects open carry, concealed carry, or both. The lower courts are split several ways on this issue. (The most recent decision was by the 9th Circuit, which said that cities must allow either open or concealed carry; they can ban one but not both.) That issue is too big for the Court to duck, and the split in the lower courts is one it will have to resolve-- probably in the Oct. 2014-June 2015 Term.
And if they do, then all bets are off, people have to realize that they can pass any thing they want.... but only serves to negate their position as "legal authority" pass the law and the consequences will be biblical.
The law is on the side of the people.
"Shall not be infringed" is not subject to any interruption
The government CAN and WILL do exactly what it wants
when it wants to whom it wants with impunity. WHY?
Because the people allow it. Of coure 90% of what
occurs violates the Consitution....but they don’t care.
They know that nothing will happen to them for what
they do. That is why we no longer even have the appearance
of being free let alone true freedom.
Till the people in power abusing that power pay the price
they have no incentive to stop abuse, no reason to fear and
no obstacle to their agenda.
You only have the rights you are willing to fight for, kill for and die for. Till those infringing on our rights start dying they will continue and become more bold and abusive.
Excellent and thanks. Your clarification is what I love about FR. It’s hard to sort out the truth.
Immaterial, since the words themselves define the law.
Law, as the Founders understood it, is written under the same rules of English used in common grammar - with declatory clauses and restrictive clauses. The 2nd Amendment is a purely declatory clause, so no authority of 'definition' is given, because there can be no restriction.
That's what makes it an acknowledged, absolute Right.
“Immaterial, since the words themselves define the law.”
The definition of the law is unclear/unknown if the definition of the words is unclear/unknown.
“Law, as the Founders understood it, is written under the same rules of English used in common grammar - with declatory clauses and restrictive clauses.”
That doesn’t change anything. It’s still necessary to know what the clauses mean.
“The 2nd Amendment is a purely declatory clause, so no authority of ‘definition’ is given, because there can be no restriction.”
What it declares is questionable without definition.
If there can be no restriction then it is wrong to restrict the keeping and bearing of arms by:
—Five year olds
—Prisoners of War
—Those held prisoner pending trial for capital crimes or being punished for same.
—A suspect being held by a posse for arrest by the sheriff.
I can't help but wonder, if that case was done under the 9th Circuit on purpose?
Given the 9th's reputation of being the most-often-overturned court in the land, the decision may have been deliberately set up to fail. Knowing that SCROTUS would reflexively overturn anything the 9th sends them...
We need to elect a conservative President to replace the leftists.
The Good Guys:
Scalia is 77
Thomas is 65
Alito is 63.
The Swing Judge:
Kennedy is 77.
The D*****-Bag:
George Bush's D*****-Bag, Roberts is 59. He will be acting as a ringer for a long time.
The Statist Fascsists:
Bader-Ginsburg is 80, and its unlikely anyone more to the left than she is is around.
Kagan is 53 and will be on the court long after many of us are dead.
Soto-Mayor is 59 - ditto.
Breyer is 75 and is a potential gain for us in the next term.
We need to get a conservative in the Presidency and we a convention of the states to amend the constitution to allow COngress or the states to nullify a SCOTUS decision if enough congressmen or states choose to do so.
1. The case was brought in the 9th Circuit because the challenge was to San Diego's law. San Diego is in the 9th Circuit. There have been challenges to similar laws in other circuits, which have largely upheld laws against carrying outside the home.
2. The Ninth Circuit used to be the most-overturned Circuit, but last year I believe the Sixth Circuit took that honor.
3. The Ninth Circuit gets overturned a lot because it has a lot of very liberal judges. But federal Circuit courts sit in randomly-selected panels of 3 judges, so you sometimes get a Ninth Circuit panel with 2 or 3 conservative judges. That's what happened here.
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.