Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Firearm-Related News' started by RicInOR, May 16, 2019.
The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure
Reading the article I have a question for the old judge. What the hell do British laws put in place prior to even our declaration of independence have to do with the 2nd Amendment that wasn't law in the USA until 1791 or for that matter even a law passed by Americans prior to Dec 15 1791 when the Bill of rights was ratified.
Sleepy Judge becomes "WOKE"........News at 11.
Says the minority dissenter. ESAD
He also states that the precedence of 3 cities having bans on discharging firearms in the city limits indicates home defense was never an intention of the 2A.
One city noted, New York, only banned for 3 days around New year's Eve. I don't know how that one applies.
Also, doesn't just about every city have a ban on discharging weapons today with the exception of defense of life? Or does everyone that has a good shoot get charged on these stupid laws?
It seems Stevens is stretching hard AF to establish a precedence where there is none.
Results of his last health and soundness exam.
British common law is actually the basis for a lot of us law and is considered in decisions today.
If he wants to believe that only weapons suitable for a militia should be allowed, I am all for it. That should take the air out of anti-black gun groups. By the way we are the militia (the people) IMHO.
Mr Stevens appears to disagree with you. Falling back to the old trope that the 2A was written while we were fighting the British thus it must be about fighting the British only. Possibly the weakest anti2a argument ever.
Forget Stevens -- read Heller: DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. Much of the British history relating to abuses of power by the ruling class against the citizenry was translated into prohibitions against the same here in the Bill of Rights. Heller is as much a history lesson as 2A case.
"The enclosed memorandum explains the basis for my firm belief that the Second Amendment does not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government to regulate the non-military use or possession of firearms."
This says it all. He has no belief the 2nd gives you a right. The whole bill of rights limits the government not the people. What a putz.
As an attorney, constitutional scholar, gun owner, and hobbyist of military/world history, I can 100% say that the it is a very TWISTED ILLOGIC to believe that the 2nd Amendment is as the leftists like Stevens believes.
A few cursory points.
1. It would be totally illogical for citizens to fight and defeat, with guns and cannons and ships etc., the largest most powerful oppressive nation in the world, only to then declare themselves to NOT have individual liberties and gun rights. And then store them in a collective. A reading of the Declaration of Independence overwhelmingly proves their distrust in powerful centralized government. Or read some of the Federalist papers...
2. NO OTHER RIGHT in the BORs is mandatory. All are optional to the owner of the right. Makes no sense to claim that being in a militia or owning a gun is mandatory. "Regulated" as used means a level of OPTIONAL organization and training. Has nothing to do with writing down serial numbers or background checks, etc. *IF* you wish to participate, you ARE ALLOWED TO organize, train, etc. Much like the 1A allows the right to gather.
3. Founders understood language. They used efficient plain language. They were not dumb. They expressly wrote that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It would be an infringement to:
* deprive one of individual guns and lock them in a public centralized armory
* create registration and confiscation schemes.
* ban designs, locations of ownership, parts, ammunition, magazines, and so forth.
* arbitrarily ban gun ownership as it is an infringement. The crown could have banned all outlaws from owning guns and declared everyone an outlaw.
4. NO OTHER RIGHT is altered based on scientific or technology advancements, so their nonsense points about advancements in gun designs falls flat. The 1A is broadened with computers, cell phones, internet, etc. The 4A is broadened to protect "papers" such as laptops, phones, emails, etc. The 8A has been broadened, the 3A has been broadened (to include highrise apartments and mobile homes and such), the 5A and 6A has been broadened with legal changes (defending allegations of child pornography, internet crimes, wire fraud, bank fraud, etc.), and so forth. NO RIGHT is locked into 1700s technology.
The leftists like Stevens are a disgrace to this nation.
Very well stated @leadcounsel
I knew who it was without even reading the story.
Stevens can go bubblegum his geriatric old butt.
Scalias opinion is really well thought out and documented. It doesn’t make everything legal, he left limits that are in keeping with miller and the historical record. Stevens is just wrong
I'll add that the total illogic of the the anti gun courts (plural) have constructed such ludicrous positions, which simply demonstrate they are ignorant and/or hate guns. The 2A meaning is plain. Individual contemporary military style arms ownership is essential to liberty against tyranny, and it must not be infringed. Yet, we get absurd conclusions that are purely anti-logic and anti-liberty, such as:
* US v Miller gave us short barreled shotguns have no legitimate military use, and therefore are not protected. Well, that is false in two or more ways. First, they are and were extremely effective as "blunderbus" weapons in warfare. Second, being of "military usefulness" is not a 2A requirement.
* Next, we get the opposite, that weapons which are TOO useful for militaries are not protected; hence the "sporting purpose" clauses. The flawed argument is that a weapon is TOO useful for a military so should not be protected. The opposite of what we saw in Miller.
* Then the fallacy of "common use." After banning entire classes of weapons to make them uncommon, the fallacy that "well nobody owns then so they are unusual and uncommon." Well, no bubblegum... ya'll banned them.
It just shows the true colors of the big government courts, restricting rights in all directions and throwing us a bone now and then.
Attorney Stephen P. Halbrook writes:
As mentioned in posts above, the historical examples John Paul Stevens cites in his article are pathetic, especially "New York banned the firing of guns for three days surrounding New Year’s Day."
Stevens writes that the "text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose." Apparently not unambiguously enough for him, so here's a good analogue to aid his comprehension:
In the “most popular” article list, the Stevens article is down from #2 last night to #5 this morning. Don’t know if it made it to #1.
The Atlantic writes:
We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to email@example.com.
This is a good opportunity to help, as far as possible, repair the damage done by Stevens’ article.
Pope John Paul, see you in hell buddy!
Agree, but British Common Law was not the basis of the Bill of Rights. If anything the Bill of Rights is the antitheses to British law and practices.
England was a bloody violent place (sorry Tac!). Their kings taxed, killed, conscripted, and worked the people to death for centuries. The period before 900AD when they fought Vikings was typical. They executed Kings, Queens, Barons, Dukes, by hanging, burning, beheading, disemboweling, draw and quarter, and poisoning, and that was just the royalty. By 1215 it got so bad that the Magna Carta was put in place, establishing some rights of both royalty and peasants.
Always has been. I never expected him to change. People and ideas like him/his must be defeated.
I really don't think there is any damage. He is preaching to the choir. The rest of us just ignore him. The people in the middle don't get exposed to his ravings except for sound bites from MSM, then the Simpsons or The Bachelor or Survivor or American Idol comes on the telly and they move on.
John Paul is just another silly lefty twisting things up for the ignorant. The 2A is not going to change because of what that old poop says, as long as patriots articulate and defend it's real derivation, history and meaning. We can't bring the unwashed masses to the Federalist Papers, but we can bring the thinking of our great ancestors/founder/scholars to them. Let them not stay ignorant.
I see the New Zealand Primo Minster is upset with our 2A. Aaaaaaaand, I care about that why???