Posted on 03/09/2007 8:10:02 AM PST by cryptical
Edited on 03/09/2007 10:38:14 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Perhaps, but I happened to remember who the person was. It would be perceived differently by people who didn't know him/her. A click on the 'view replies' button shows that.
The second amendment says, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The difference is important - the scope of the second amendment was not limited to any particular government.
Let me know how it goes!
I'm getting pretty well tired of the Stalinist liberalism and Hitlerian arms "laws" we have here in the formerly Garden State. I just read Nappen II (lawyer & author Evan Nappen on N.J. gun laws) and was astounded at the volume, incredible complexity -- and sheer idiocy -- of "arms laws" we have here in N.J.
For an example of the idiocy.... there is a type of weapon called a "slungshot," which is essentially a lethal type of yo-yo. In New Jersey, the law passed to ban slungshots was misprinted and reads that slingshots are banned instead. This nutty state never saw fit to correct the misprinted law.... and as a result, it is a felony to own a slingshot in N.J. Crazy.
I'm fortunate in that I live in Sussex County, which means I live close enough to N.Y. and Pa. to have some options (not that they're much better). But, for example, N.Y. has no state police background check for rifles and shotguns -- just the NICS. When I picked up a small rifle in N.Y., I had to fill out "only" two forms (as opposed to the 400 in N.J.), didn't have to suffer the indignity of paying a fee for NICS, and was in and out of the store in 15 minutes. When I bought a shotgun and a 9mm in N.J., I spent nearly an hour just filling out paperwork, and was in the store for nearly 2 hours..... Madness. Maybe I paid a little more sales tax (though not much), but I didn't pay any ridiculous fees, didn't have to fill out a mountain of paperwork, and it was convenient (close to home).
If this decision is sustained by the USSC, the major threat to the Second Amendment will become repeal or modification through the amendment process.
Take a look at flashbunny's profile.
I'd need to see that in writing.
Certainly if SCOTUS rules an individual right, that would be cause for celebration. But it wouldn't change anything.
First, it would apply only to the federal government. Second, Congress can still move forward with legislation like the AWB that's in the House -- even this decision admitted that.
I'd like to see a state bring a suit saying that the federal AWB infringes on the state's ability to form a Militia since the AWB (and the NFA and the GCA) prohibits the very arms they wish their citizens to keep and bear. AND file that suit in the 9th Circuit since they're the ones who are already on record saying the second amendment protects the formation of a state Militia!
Ah, we can only dream.
A state can't violate the second amendment- it does not apply to the states except as it's considered a privelege or immunity under the 14th amendment.
The example you gave clearly violates the individual right if the second is incorporated as it was meant to apply to the feds so I don't see your point.
Yes, the militia was inferior. That was well known even before 1812.
It was also well known that a standing army has certain drawbacks too,
According to the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, the scope of all amendments was limited to the federal government. And, that's how it was interpreted and enforced for almost 150 years.
The majority in yesterday’s decision pointed to a 1998 dissent in which “at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read ‘bear arms’ in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering.” They were former Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who died in 2005, and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia and David H. Souter.
The second amendment says, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The difference is important - the scope of the second amendment was not limited to any particular government.
Yes. I don't believe that it is also coincidence that the Second Amendment is even more important than the First Amendment, although of course both are fundamental in a society of free men.
Correct. No matter what the second amendment means, it only applies to the federal government.
So if a state, today, confiscates all weapons from its citizens and stores them in a secure state armory for use by the citizens when needed, that would not violate the second amendment (or any other part of the U.S. Constitution). Yes?
So, how does the second amendment ensure that citizens "would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty"? It doesn't.
Here's Ginsburg's dissent. Could you point me to anything in it that would be cause for celebration?
No, because the 14th Amendment has been interpreted continually to mean that the States can't violate constitutional rights.
Constitutional rights would apply to people in the Federal District of Columbia even without the 14th Amendment
Which makes United States Code Title 18 Section 241 especially relevant:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; orIf two or more Ninja-masked agents of the federal District of Columbia kick in a citizen's door and threaten him with deadly force as a result of that citizen's exercising his rights under the 2nd Amendment, by my reading of the above those agents themselves become subject to fine, imprisonment, or executionIf two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Really? So why haven't States been required to provide juries in cases where the value in controversy exceeds twenty dollars?
You don't even know what Miller says, how can I have an intelligent discussion with you?
The Prosecutor did not appeal, Miller did, and he disappeared before the case could be argued. SCOTUS still issued an opinion even though Miller's side never filed a brief. The very fact that SCOTUS ruled on the appeal, rather than dismiss for lack of standing means that Miller had standing to appeal the lower Court's decision - otherwise SCOTUS CAN NOT ISSUE A RULING ON THE MATTER.
The only way Miller would have had standing on a second amendment argument is if SCOTUS recognized that the second amendment protected an individual right. The Government's brief (have you read it, I have) didn't even argue standing, therefore the Government at the time conceded that Miller had standing.
What do you do for a living? Are you on the VPC's payroll?
Are you some kind of socialist attorney? (I hope not, because you really are out of your league in this discussion and you should go back to whatever it is that you do where presumably you actually have some knowledge.)
I'm through with you on this subject - you clearly are either ignorant or a shill for the anti-civil liberties crowd or both. Regardless, you have demonstrated over the years on this forum a refusal to actually learn from people who know more on the subject than you do - including the Fifth Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal District of the District of Columbia.
Good day.
But the fourteenth is a cesspool. Texturally it imposes anything the feds want on the states. It's original intent is murky, with broad statements by it's enactors. What little I've seen of the ratifying debates in the states - the determining evidence per Madison- points to it's purpose being to end discrimination of rights instead. But the evidence is not clear to me at this point.
"Since the early 60's, almost every clause in the Bill of Rights has been incorporated (notable exceptions are the 2nd and 3rd Amendments, the grand jury indictment clause of the 5th Amendment, and the 7th Amendment)."
A succinct summary. Any reference to "states" or whether the District is or is not a state, or whether the ruling applies to states, is irrelevant.
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.