Gun-rights confusion

Orange County Registrar Dot COM ^ | 12-20-2002 | Editorial Staff

[vannrox]

Conditions are now ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not dealt with gun control issues since 1939 (and then rather cryptically), to resolve whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms or a collective right that can be exercised mainly by members of an organized militia.

[blackbart.223]

"Judge Reinhardt...is he senile, or is he a Communist?"

I'd say he's both.

[Slings and Arrows]

The version of it I heard was "A well educated electorate being neccesary to the survival of a free nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

IMO, this is closer to the the phrasing of the Second Amendment in that both state that the right in question is being protected to support a subgroup of the population (electorate in this version, militia in 2nd Amendment), but that this protection applies to all citizens.

Just my $2*10^-2.

FReegards,
Slings and Arrows

[Shooter 2.5]

Why don't you hand it over to Oleg Volk over at thehighroad.org and see what he can do with it?

[lennydetroit]

"Judge Reinhardt...is he senile, or is he a Communist? "

He's a Californian, so anything else is redundant! (With apologies to all Left Coast Freepers)

Regards, Lenny

[Squantos]

He the same guy at a human right dot something er other ??

Stay Safe !

[Hugin]

Whether the court has the political courage and intellectual integrity to do so properly may be in question.

Yes, it is. They have been dodging the issue for 40 years.

[Lancey Howard]

"....nothing in the Bill of Rights confers a right, but rather protects God-given rights by limiting government's power to encroach upon them."

(LOUD APPLAUSE!!!)

You are, of course, absolutely correct. This is basic high school civics (at least, it used to be).

This scumbag judge Stephen Reinhardt from the Ninth Circus actually said....

"....the Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms."

.... and thereby demonstrated (on several levels), that he does not even possess the most basic understanding of the United States Constitution. How utterly embarrassing that he used the phrase "confer an individual right". A federal freakin' judge!!! The filthy puke.

[Lancey Howard]

Whether the court has the political courage and intellectual integrity to do so properly may be in question.

This newspaper is no doubt referring to four or five members of the Supreme Court, not all of them collectively. It's a shame they didn't just come out and say it.

[mvpel]

Erudite? He claims in his ruling that the individual rights view has "never been adopted by any court," when in fact there are dozens of state court cases to that effect, and dicta in a number of Supreme Court cases that indicate an individual rights view.

Erudidiot, is more like it.

[sneakypete]

Now we have to "hope" for a "good or bad decision".

Not really. I'm going to keep my guns regardless of how they rule. If they rule against individual rights,they are wrong,and no man is obligated to follow a wrong law. Personally,I don't think the Supremes will touch it.

[Shooter 2.5]

http://www.mcrgo.org/photo_gallery_volk1.asp

His posters have been on FR a number of times.

He was the first poster on High Road in the discussions area. I don't think he would be hard to contact.

[RogueIsland]

We (the People) should always keep in mind that nothing in the Bill of Rights confers a right, but rather protects God-given rights by limiting government's power to encroach upon them.

Too bad NPR doesn't understand that. In a hit-piece on the 2nd Amendment the other morning, they repeatedly and with emphasis tried to make the point that "most courts" have ruled that the 2nd Amendment doesn't "allow for individual ownership of guns".

[Travis McGee]

I can't claim credit for that one! Wish I could but I can't. It is a great parallel saying though: "clearly this means that dangerous books must be kept only under strict control at state sponsored institutes of higher learning! They must not be permitted into the hands of every ordinary individuals, where their great power can be misused!"

[yarddog]

I always thought the right to bear arms was closely related to the most basic human right which is the right to control one's own self. It is also related to the right to life.

The idea that one cedes the ability to protect their own person to some other entity or government agency is just plain awful and unamerican.

It is the very opposity of personal freedom and responsibility.

[Scruffy]

Religion, taxes, firearms: Today's topics from yesterday's revolution.

[Jhoffa_]

I think commie is very close to a good, working definition.

[Jhoffa_]

Ohhhh.. I like.

Of course, considering how education is treated nowdays I can see people saying "Sure, we would go along with that.."

[Shooter 2.5]

I registered on highroad.org and sent Oleg an e mail. I mentioned FR and you. I don't know if anything will come out of it but he does such nice work, it would be interesting if he could do a poster.

[RollingThunder]

Simply put: BOTH!!!!!

[SevenDaysInMay]

BTTT