Skip to comments.Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns
Posted on 12/12/2010 11:33:59 AM PST by driftdiver
If you look at the values and the historical record, you will see that the Founding Fathers never intended guns to go unregulated, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer contended Sunday.
Appearing on "Fox News Sunday," Breyer said history stands with the dissenters in the court's decision to overturn a Washington, D.C., handgun ban in the 2008 case "D.C. v. Heller."
Breyer wrote the dissent and was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He said historians would side with him in the case because they have concluded that Founding Father James Madison was more worried that the Constitution may not be ratified than he was about granting individuals the right to bear arms.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The same Founding Fathers who drafted a Constitution with an implicit right of civilian ownership of naval artillery? Those Founding fathers? Or the ones he wishes had existed, and based on the Constitution that exists only in Breyer’s head?
Since the judiciary is clearly interested in precedent, this earlier justice would have to admit to ownership and use of all arms up to the first gun control legislation that was passed. I am curious if we are talking about the 1930's now.
implicit right of civilian ownership of naval artillery?
***Interesting. This is the first I’ve heard of this angle. Do you have some further references or links?
When that happens, there is really nothing left to do short of a revolution or find another country that still has it’s values. Yes, there are some, you must have to do your4 research. We MUST win in 2012. It is a MUST!
The Congress shall have Power ... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;Letters of Marque and Reprisal allowed armed civilian ships to capture enemy shipping in a manner that would otherwise be piracy. That these and other civilian ships would be armed was a given in the 18th century.
That is a pretty ignorant comment. Thomas has a very unique and Originalist view of the Constitution, and it is one that is both deep in thought and far more reflective of the founders intent than most others. Thomas sometimes gets things wrong (all of the Justices do) but he also gets a whole lot of things right. In fact, he sometimes gets things right when Scalia gets them wrong (IE: Raich).
Which leftwing blockhead said that? That's like saying freedom of the press only applied to printing presses and only to those of the type available in the 18th century.
Damned right they would have supported restrictions. That’s why the duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr never happened.
Indeed! Did that Justice, or his security own Tommyguns at the time? Precedent set! My christmas shopping just got a whole lot easier.
Basically privateers, right? Sounds a lot like militia to me. Thanks for the link.
Please send those quotes to each member of the SCOTUS.
He’s right about living in a visual age. Watching his interview two words came to my mind: Arrogant and Creepy.
There are so many laws & precedents & rabbit holes in the constitution now, that even members of the SCOTUS are just following their own emotional opinions rather than seriously deliberating the issues. It’s a tragedy, and a sign that this republic could be doomed.
I think a studied person would realize that Justice Thomas ia a steady proponent of natural law.
I’m siding with you on this one also!
>The son-of-a-bitch is only 72. After that statement though, we should move to have him retired non compos mentis.
What’s sad is that such a statement isn’t considered treason, which the Constitution defines as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
The reasoning is simple; the Second Amendment states:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, obviously there is a relationship between the militia and the right to bear arms shown here, namely: an individual member of society cannot function as a member of the militia without the equipment thereof. Therefore to bar access to such “terrible implements of war” is exactly equivalent (constitutionally speaking) to refusing to supply the army.
Therefore, because this is an exact equivalence, forbidding the general citizen the right to keep and bear arms *IS* supplying aid and comfort to America’s enemies, precisely because it denies otherwise capable militia members from the militia which *IS* the security for the free state.
Unless you're Assange, and you have the goods on banksters.
From the Constitution:
“To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”
In the days of fighting sail, a Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a private vessel to attack and capture enemy vessels, and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a Letter of Marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy which was universally reviled.
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque ]
So, obviously the Letter of Marque requires a fully stocked and armed warship.
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.