Supreme Court Copyright Ruling May Have Important Implications for 2nd Amendment Gun Rights

FindLaw ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Michael C. Dorf

[berserker]

Link to court opinion Elred v. Ashcroft.

[BenLurkin]

I dis-agree that Ginsburg's decision ignores the prefatory language. She rather declined to accept plaintiff's assertions as to how it should be applied as a practical matter. The unspoken point in the Constitution is that people will be more likely to share their inventions if they can expect to profit from them.

[Sir Gawain]

On the other hand, if the prefatory language can basically be ignored, the right would seem to be an individual one.

What BS. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Badray]

"What BS. This guy doesn't know what he's talking about."

Exactly. My right to KABA doesn't depend on manipulating the meaning of words or a truncated statement of that right.

[ThinkDifferent]

people will be more likely to share their inventions if they can expect to profit from them

True, which might justify adding to copyright lengths of future works (although I doubt anyone honestly believes the difference between life+75 and life+95 is going to cause works to be created which otherwise wouldn't). But it's logically impossible for retroactive extensions to promote creation. The bill was a blatant payoff to Hollywood, and I agree with the dissenters that at least the retroactive portion is unconstitutional.

[FreeTally]

Horse poop.

The ruling has zero affect on the 2nd Amendment or the RKABA. The author's opinion is an absurd conclusion.

[bvw]

Yeah, but his inability to know up from down is fairly representative of our current crop of legal scholars, "our best Constitutional authorities" -- feh!

The "non-mainstream/wacko" Gun Rights people have the best reconstruction of original intent. Would that their minds and scholarly efforts be brought to bear on the copyright and patent clause as well.

[wcbtinman]

The author would have much more credibility if the 2nd Amendment were correctly quoted.

There is only one comma in the the original Constitution.

It makes a difference to the context.

[Nephi]

My interpretation of the second amendment, before it was interpreted for me, was that the people regulated the militia by being armed.

[Puppage]

WE, are the militia. You & me..THE PEOPLE. Who made up the militia? Everyday people...with their OWN guns, they WERE NOT given to them. And, they drilled on Town Greens, not military installations. When they say militia, they say WE THE PEOPLE. PERIOD.

Funny, but WHY are ALL the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights of, for & by The People...EXCEPT THE 2ND AMENDMENT? Why not the 5th, the 1st? Hmm?

[Lizard_King]

While I believe the author's conclusion about the 2nd amendment is absurd, the copyright question is far more important than it would seem on the surface to most people.

I believe Lawrence Lessig has one of the most comprehensive explanations of the current (messed up) state of copyright law here:

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/policy/2002/08/15/lessig.html

I highly recommend the mp3 version as it is much more enjoyable.

[ZULU]

"Put another way, does the right declared by the Amendment belong only to the "militia" (or the People as a whole), as the prefatory language suggests? Or does it belong to individuals, as the rest of the Amendment, standing alone, could be read to imply?"

Since in the view of the FOunding Fathers "the militia" was all able bodied males capable of bearing arms, this is an irrelevancy except in the minds of liberal left-wing revisionists who are apparently always intent upon misinterpreting and redefining original intent.

[harpseal]

If the argument made by the author held then it would tend to even further bolster arguments about the Second Ammendment being a recognition and guarantee of the individual right.

[ZULU]

I believe "regulated" meant "trained" in colonial parlance.

Like "gun control" means being able to control a gun, i.e. to hit a target with it.

[ZULU]

The way I inderstand it, the Bill of Rights merely recognizes certain basic human rights, it in itself doesn't "grant" those rights, because they come from God.

Every creature has an inherent right to self-defense. The Second Amendment addresses that, as well as the fear of the Founding Fathers that a powerful central government would be more likely to abuse the basic rights of its citizens if those citizens did not possess the wherewithal to overthrow said abusive government. That is very clear in the Declaration of Independence.

[Nephi]

Since the left is trying to construe people's interpretation of the second amendment to their way of thinking, I think my interpretation reqires less contortion and would be in line with most people's assumption of the mindset of our freedom loving founders.

[inquest]

I believe "regulated" meant "trained" in colonial parlance.

I hear that stated a lot in RKBA circles but never see anything to back it up. If you have any references at all to indicate that that was part of their usage, I'd love to see it.

[Badray]

You understand correctly. But you knew that, didn't you? ;-)

[Redbob]

There's no comparison here.

The "prefatory language" in the commerce clause explicitly states what the patent protection is intended to do, using the preposition "to", while the Second Amendment's "prefatory statement" begins with the indefinite article "a".
In the first case, the meaning of the sentence absolutely depends on the prefatory clause - without it, there'd be no sentence! - while in the case of the Second Amendment, the meaning is clear without reference to the prefatory clause at all.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

Regulated back then meant operating smoothly or in the proper manner. Like a clock that runs on time is well regulated.