Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Nosmo King, Feb 25, 2018.
The Supreme Court cannot ‘usurp’ the Constitution, that makes no sense.
Indeed, the Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to determine what the Constitution means, to establish the case law lower courts are to follow, and to invalidate measures repugnant to the Constitution – in the case of Heller, DC’s handgun ban.
“There is something foul about the numbers of shooting victims here compared with other nations in the developed world. "
Commenting about "shooting victims" or "gun violence" does not necessarily indicate the level of violence in a nation for the simple reason that not all violent acts are committed with a gun or any other weapon.
It should be remembered that fire extinguishers and vehicle safety equipment are not actually needed at the time they are bought. They are purchased for a need that is not currently present and that you hope never is. The same can be true of guns.
You should study law before commenting on it. And you should READ my posts before commenting on them. So, for your convenience, as soon as I post this SECOND mini lesson, I will repost the first.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)
Where did this Right to keep and bear Arms as intended by the founders come from?
"Willliam Blackstone, who “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation…”
This was Blackstone’s outlook:
“Man … must necessarily be subject to the laws of his Creator… This will of his Maker is called the law of nature…. This law of nature…is of course superior to any other…. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them as are valid derive all their force…from this original.”
Reliance on Blackstone is necessarily reliance upon natural law.
Natural Right Understandings at the Time of the Second Amendment
In searching for how the Second Amendment was understood at the time it was enacted and the years that followed Heller notes the following:
Blackstone described fundamental rights to include: “the natural right of resistance and self-preservation,” and “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence…” (1769)
The Second Amendment: A Personal Natural Right to Keep and Bear Arms | David J. Shestokas
On 2 November 1772 stated in a Boston Town Hall Meeting Samuel Adams said:
"Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature."
(Source: The Annals of America, Volume 2 - 1755 - 1783 - Resistance and Revolution Encyclopaedia Britannica 1976)
Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s arms-bearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.” 2 Collected Works of James Wilson 1142, and n. x (K. Hall & M. Hall eds. 2007) (citing Pa. Const., Art. IX, §21 (1790)
For those making the ludicrous argument that the Second Amendment granted the states a right to maintain a militia, their argument falls flat. I remind them of the first court cases at the STATE level wherein the STATES said that the Right to keep and bear Arms is above the law.
The FIRST United States Supreme Court ruling stated quite unequivocally that the Constitution does not grant the Right... ALL the states of that era (while the founders were still alive) referred to the Right of the People to be armed as a Right of the People AND as a natural right.
Scalia, probably wanting to appease the right ruled that the Right to keep and bear Arms was an "individual right." Don't you love how the United States Supreme Court gets further and further from the meaning of the Second Amendment? But, I digress. Let us now repeat my first lesson on this for C_Clayton_ Jones
Reposted for C_Clayton_Jones
Here is, basically, the left's argument in a nutshell:
“From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment concluded it did not guarantee an individual right to a gun.”
Americans can no longer be trusted with the Second Amendment
Ever since the United States Supreme Court reviewed the Second Amendment for a second time, they have very carefully changed the meaning of that Amendment little by little. Let's do a mini lesson for you so that you can see what happened between the founders and the Heller decision:
In 1775, the "shot heard around the world" sounded off. Here is an excerpt from an article you will find englighening:
"The American War of Independence began on April 19, 1775, when 700 Redcoats under the command of Major John Pitcairn left Boston to seize American arms at Lexington and Concord.
The militia that assembled at the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge consisted of able-bodied men aged 16 to 60. They supplied their own firearms, although a few poor men had to borrow a gun. Warned by Paul Revere and Samuel Dawes of the British advance, the young women of Lexington assembled cartridges late into the evening of April 18."
The American Revolution against British Gun Control
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" Patrick Henry Speech on the Federal Constitution, Virginia Ratifying Convention (Monday, 9 June 1788)
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."
- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story (United State Supreme Court Justice) , Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833 (Story was nominated by James Madison (a founding father) in 1811
Now, if you go back to the argument being made, the anti-gun argument begins in 1888 when law review articles were first indexed. Not only did they ignore ALL of the things the founders discussed and debated over relative to private arms, but they ignored best evidence. And what is best evidence? That would be what has the most authority. The left is certainly welcome to bring any anti-gun speeches to he table, but that rarely works out for them. And, you could accuse me of cherry picking quotes, but what matters is HOW THE FIRST COURTS RULED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
The state courts ruled on the Second Amendment long before the federal courts considered the matter. So, the states rulings are, in lawyerspeak, referred to as persuasive authority. The United States Supreme Court is free to consider those rulings as persuasive and rule consistent with lower court rulings OR they could outright overturn the lower courts. So, here is what happened:
In 1846, the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:
"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
Do you not think that those judges were not aware of what the founders said and meant?
A few years later (1859), in Texas the court ruled:
"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
How much more unequivocal can you get? So, finally the United States Supreme Court weighs in and their ruling is:
"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose."This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence." United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
Take a look with your own eyes. The United States Supreme Court considered what the founders said; they considered lower court rulings. THEN the high Court says that the Second Amendment does not grant the Right - and THEN they said that the Right is in no way dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.They did not say it did not exist; they acknowledged its existence.
BEFORE 1888 the founders were in agreement, the early Supreme Court Justices agreed with the sentiment (though they had yet to consider it in court) the state courts were in agreement and the FIRST United States Supreme Court rulings let the precedents stand. The Right to keep and bear Arms was absolute; it was unlimited as to what kind of guns you could own, it was a Right of the PEOPLE.
Then, when you start tracing the actions of the United States Supreme Court, they changed the meaning ever so slightly - Hell in Miller, a weapon had to be one used by the militia (AND THEN LATER CONGRESS OUTLAWED REAL MILITIA WEAPONS FOR CIVILIAN USE!!!!!) Finally, we get to the Heller decision:
"(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited...."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
WTH????? How did we go from a Right not even under the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court... one that was absolute; one that had no limitations to the point that the United States Supreme Court declares that "most rights" are not unlimited. In order to appease the ACLU, "some rights" are unlimited, just not the Second Amendment. When, exactly, did the United States Supreme Court get into the business of granting rights? Hint: When they started doing that, ALL of the founders were dead and buried.
And so, today, you live in an illegal / de facto Federal Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by a few elite multinational corporations. Tyranny is at your doorstep and you can choose to embrace it or fight against tyranny. But, now you have the facts.
Marbury V. Madison is part of the Constitution?
You Stalinists are sure smart.
C_Clayton_Jones, post: 19426172
It doesn't need to 'end' all types of gun crimes and violence. That's a bar set way too high to discourage a try. The objective is to reduce the incidence of mass murder shootings with that type of firearm. The reason it may have less an effect now is the proliferation of assault rifles since the ban was lifted in 2004.
Since now there are so many assault rifles in existence thanks to no ban on manufacture and sale, a rational mind would conclude ttat it was bad law to allow the original ban to cease to exist.
It is therefore irrational to consider a law banning what it banned before to be bad law.
It was a good law. It was bad that it ended.
Stop asking the same question over and over and somehow expecting a different answer.
You answer a couple for a change:
If it was such a good law why-after 10 yrs-could it not be shown to have accomplished anything?
Why revisit a non-functional law?
Why force a law on American people who have already plainly shown that retaining it is against their will?
We dont have anything close to what you have described. We have militia chaos and anarchy in this country, and you must be kidding if you think this is the case:
"The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army."
It does not look as if the American militia has the equipment and training to be a formidable check against our standing army. And most Americans wouldn't trust any kind of right wing based militia to be equipped and trained enough to even try.
There is a problem with this too;
"well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.'
The US military has regulations for everything. They Army and a legitimate militia if it was still needed would be regulated with all kinds of regulations.
Regulations are what keeps the US military correctly calibrated and functioning as expected.
James Madison truly meant to write 'well self-regulated militia without regulations' Kind of you to point that out.
Don't think GenZ is gonna buy that kind of BS any longer.
9thIDdoc, post: 19432731
There is not one single question on my post to which you are responding. Are you twitter-pated and flummoxed or something. That is a question, but it is the first tine I've asked it.
Separate names with a comma.