Californias Updated CCW Requirements In Response To Bruen

[BAJ475]

None of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights sets out a justification for the right enumerated, only the 2A. I guess Scalia just thought they got verbose when drafting the second amendment and that the prefatory phrase could be ignored as he did.

Thanks for the reply. So am I correct that you do not think that the founders were being verbose? If so, then please state what you believe the prefatory phrase means and/or what the founding fathers intended when they included the prefatory clause.

 

[WWShooter]

Thanks for the reply. So am I correct that you do not think that the founders were being verbose? If so, then please state what you believe the prefatory phrase means and/or what the founding fathers intended when they included the prefatory clause.

Here's a fairly detailed and footnoted article on the history of the 2A. 2A History

What I think doesn't particularly matter, other than that the so-called "originalists" on the SCOTUS sometimes find it convenient not to go strictly by the words of the Constitution when it suits their politics.

 

[BAJ475]

Here's a fairly detailed and footnoted article on the history of the 2A. 2A History

What I think doesn't particularly matter, other than that the so-called "originalists" on the SCOTUS sometimes find it convenient not to go strictly by the words of the Constitution when it suits their politics.

First, while what we may think may not particularly matter in the overall scheme of things, that does not mean that your views mean nothing to me and others on this forum.

Interesting read, despite the fact that the author clearly does not share my views of the 2A and displays some antagonism toward how I view it. There were a few passages that, to me, show misunderstanding and bias on his part. First, her refers to the Bill of Rights as statutes. Clearly they are not statutes. Next he states "[o]ne would think that enacting legislation to prevent such atrocities would be an enormously smart career move for any smart politician." The idea that the passage of legislation could "prevent" atrocities appears to be straight out of the liberal anti-2A play book and is demonstrably nonsense. Murder and robbery have been legislatively outlawed since before the founding and such legislation has not stopped or prevented such crimes. And the idea that disarming or restricting the arms law abiding citizens my acquire, keep and bear will some how magically prevent crime are the delusions of an idiot or the deceitful utterings of those with desires to enslave us. I also found it interesting and disturbing that he never attempts to explain his claim that "the Court must decide which right takes precedence — one's right to 'equal protection under the law' or the right 'of the people to keep and bear arms, '" as if they are somehow antagonistic and not possible of fulling existing at the same time. Finally, his lack of objective honesty is underscored by his claim that the Mandalay Bay shooter used an "automatic rifle," clearly implying that it was not a semi-auto but a fully automatic machine gun. Although the article predates the decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, it appears that he could see the writting on the wall. To him I say get use to it, there is more to come!

 

[WWShooter]

First, while what we may think may not particularly matter in the overall scheme of things, that does not mean that your views mean nothing to me and others on this forum.

Interesting read, despite the fact that the author clearly does not share my views of the 2A and displays some antagonism toward how I view it. There were a few passages that, to me, show misunderstanding and bias on his part. First, her refers to the Bill of Rights as statutes. Clearly they are not statutes. Next he states "[o]ne would think that enacting legislation to prevent such atrocities would be an enormously smart career move for any smart politician." The idea that the passage of legislation could "prevent" atrocities appears to be straight out of the liberal anti-2A play book and is demonstrably nonsense. Murder and robbery have been legislatively outlawed since before the founding and such legislation has not stopped or prevented such crimes. And the idea that disarming or restricting the arms law abiding citizens my acquire, keep and bear will some how magically prevent crime are the delusions of an idiot or the deceitful utterings of those with desires to enslave us. I also found it interesting and disturbing that he never attempts to explain his claim that "the Court must decide which right takes precedence — one's right to 'equal protection under the law' or the right 'of the people to keep and bear arms, '" as if they are somehow antagonistic and not possible of fulling existing at the same time. Finally, his lack of objective honesty is underscored by his claim that the Mandalay Bay shooter used an "automatic rifle," clearly implying that it was not a semi-auto but a fully automatic machine gun. Although the article predates the decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, it appears that he could see the writting on the wall. To him I say get use to it, there is more to come!

The point of my initial comment was that the SCOTUS has taken a decidedly political turn, so anything the conservative majority decides today can be overturned by a liberal majority in the future; and given the contempt the conservatives have shown for precedent, I'd expect that a future liberal majority would have no problem reversing much of what this SCOTUS has done. The reversal of Roe is not good in the long term for 2A rights.

 

[Diamondback]

First, while what we may think may not particularly matter in the overall scheme of things, that does not mean that your views mean nothing to me and others on this forum.

Interesting read, despite the fact that the author clearly does not share my views of the 2A and displays some antagonism toward how I view it. There were a few passages that, to me, show misunderstanding and bias on his part. First, her refers to the Bill of Rights as statutes. Clearly they are not statutes. Next he states "[o]ne would think that enacting legislation to prevent such atrocities would be an enormously smart career move for any smart politician." The idea that the passage of legislation could "prevent" atrocities appears to be straight out of the liberal anti-2A play book and is demonstrably nonsense. Murder and robbery have been legislatively outlawed since before the founding and such legislation has not stopped or prevented such crimes. And the idea that disarming or restricting the arms law abiding citizens my acquire, keep and bear will some how magically prevent crime are the delusions of an idiot or the deceitful utterings of those with desires to enslave us. I also found it interesting and disturbing that he never attempts to explain his claim that "the Court must decide which right takes precedence — one's right to 'equal protection under the law' or the right 'of the people to keep and bear arms, '" as if they are somehow antagonistic and not possible of fulling existing at the same time. Finally, his lack of objective honesty is underscored by his claim that the Mandalay Bay shooter used an "automatic rifle," clearly implying that it was not a semi-auto but a fully automatic machine gun. Although the article predates the decision in NYSRPA v Bruen, it appears that he could see the writting on the wall. To him I say get use to it, there is more to come!

Troll Gonna Troll, bro, stop with the feeding.

 

[mhayd93]

The point of my initial comment was that the SCOTUS has taken a decidedly political turn, so anything the conservative majority decides today can be overturned by a liberal majority in the future; and given the contempt the conservatives have shown for precedent, I'd expect that a future liberal majority would have no problem reversing much of what this SCOTUS has done. The reversal of Roe is not good in the long term for 2A rights.

I think where you are confused, is the fact that we have reached a point in the US where upholding the Constitution and evaluating it from an originalist perspective, is considered "political" (typically referring to people on the right).

Meanwhile, there exists the other side of the "political" debate (typically those on the left) that frequently disregard or attempt to subvert the Constitution entirely.

From this modern perspective, it does indeed appear as though the current Supreme Court is making "politically motivated" decisions because they are in support of many core values of a certain political party's platform. That does not mean that the justices are making decisions based off of politics, however. Rather, it just goes to show the sad state of affairs we live in where millions of people actually hate the Constitution and would rather see it infringed upon whenever/wherever possible.

TL;DR—Increasing the scope of the 2nd Amendment and reversing Roe v Wade may appear political due to the modern divisions between major political parties; but from a Constitutional standpoint, the recent decisions were factually correct, whether you like it or not.

 

[BAJ475]

...
reversing Roe v Wade may appear political due to the modern divisions between major political parties; but from a Constitutional standpoint, the recent decisions were factually correct, whether you like it or not.

Despite being very pro choice, I must agree. Roe was manufactured out of a liberal court's desire to amend the Constitution using a process other than what the founders established and to substitute themselves in place of the several states.

 

[WWShooter]

I think where you are confused, is the fact that we have reached a point in the US where upholding the Constitution and evaluating it from an originalist perspective, is considered "political" (typically referring to people on the right).

Meanwhile, there exists the other side of the "political" debate (typically those on the left) that frequently disregard or attempt to subvert the Constitution entirely.

From this modern perspective, it does indeed appear as though the current Supreme Court is making "politically motivated" decisions because they are in support of many core values of a certain political party's platform. That does not mean that the justices are making decisions based off of politics, however. Rather, it just goes to show the sad state of affairs we live in where millions of people actually hate the Constitution and would rather see it infringed upon whenever/wherever possible.

TL;DR—Increasing the scope of the 2nd Amendment and reversing Roe v Wade may appear political due to the modern divisions between major political parties; but from a Constitutional standpoint, the recent decisions were factually correct, whether you like it or not.

Thank you, but I'm not confused.