Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
Then go ahead and amend the 2nd to give government the power to restrict of ban weapons you don't like.And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?Because in those days, muskets posed little danger in the hands of one lunatic who wanted to play tyrant for a day. Much less, nobody back then was foolish enough to think that firing one round per minute could protect one individual from the government if it were to become corrupt. A person had to have the help of the rest of the community for such an effort.
Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.
Right On!!
There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.
Let us know how that goes for you.
Only an idiot doesn't know how much effort and activity it takes to amend the constitution.
I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson....he wrote that he believed the constitution and bill of rights should be reviewed and amended periodically
I'll give ten to one odds if there had been caches of automatic weapons and nukes around the original would have read one helluva lot different.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
Yes it did.
Since then case after case after case has built up, to the point where the Supreme Court will, in almost every case, refer back to previous cases.
The Heller case (as it's one of the most relevant to this topic) referred back to United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
They didn't make their interpretation in isolation of the previous 200 years of case law. They may have added stuff, but they certainly knew what they were talking about in regards to other cases on the matter.
If you have a problem and you go to the court, then you have to accept the ruling of the court. Lawyers will talk about previous case law, they might think they have a chance of changing previous law, it doesn't happen much, however everything will revolve around what when on before.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
Yes it did.
It did not. There was no related case law to refer to.
Since then case after case after case has built up, to the point where the Supreme Court will, in almost every case, refer back to previous cases.
The Heller case (as it's one of the most relevant to this topic) referred back to United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
Case law exists because of the courts. The Constitution exists with or without the courts. Set Dred Scott v. Sanford, for example, against the 14th Amendment.
They didn't make their interpretation in isolation of the previous 200 years of case law. They may have added stuff, but they certainly knew what they were talking about in regards to other cases on the matter.
See previous. Also, the Constitution requires NO interpretation. It is quite clear in what it says.
If you have a problem and you go to the court, then you have to accept the ruling of the court. Lawyers will talk about previous case law, they might think they have a chance of changing previous law, it doesn't happen much, however everything will revolve around what when on before.
Indeed, and whether constitutional or not, as it will be enforced at gunpoint if need be.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
The sentence is purely explanatory. It has no legal force.
Of course, you've had this explained to you 100 times already, but you obviously don't give a crap.
If it's explanatory, then it's explaining that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the right of states to form and arm militias.
Sheer nonsense.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
Yes it did.
It did not. There was no related case law to refer to.
Since then case after case after case has built up, to the point where the Supreme Court will, in almost every case, refer back to previous cases.
The Heller case (as it's one of the most relevant to this topic) referred back to United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
Case law exists because of the courts. The Constitution exists with or without the courts. Set Dred Scott v. Sanford, for example, against the 14th Amendment.
They didn't make their interpretation in isolation of the previous 200 years of case law. They may have added stuff, but they certainly knew what they were talking about in regards to other cases on the matter.
See previous. Also, the Constitution requires NO interpretation. It is quite clear in what it says.
If you have a problem and you go to the court, then you have to accept the ruling of the court. Lawyers will talk about previous case law, they might think they have a chance of changing previous law, it doesn't happen much, however everything will revolve around what when on before.
Indeed, and whether constitutional or not, as it will be enforced at gunpoint if need be.
So, the Heller case didn't refer back to Presser, Miller or Cruikshank then?
The Constitution needs no interpretation? You're living in some kind of dream land. Do you not see how many cases end up in front of Federal Judges, and you say there's no need......
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
Yes it did.
It did not. There was no related case law to refer to.
Since then case after case after case has built up, to the point where the Supreme Court will, in almost every case, refer back to previous cases.
The Heller case (as it's one of the most relevant to this topic) referred back to United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
Case law exists because of the courts. The Constitution exists with or without the courts. Set Dred Scott v. Sanford, for example, against the 14th Amendment.
They didn't make their interpretation in isolation of the previous 200 years of case law. They may have added stuff, but they certainly knew what they were talking about in regards to other cases on the matter.
See previous. Also, the Constitution requires NO interpretation. It is quite clear in what it says.
If you have a problem and you go to the court, then you have to accept the ruling of the court. Lawyers will talk about previous case law, they might think they have a chance of changing previous law, it doesn't happen much, however everything will revolve around what when on before.
Indeed, and whether constitutional or not, as it will be enforced at gunpoint if need be.
So, the Heller case didn't refer back to Presser, Miller or Cruikshank then?
Of course, I did not say that. Try again.
The Constitution needs no interpretation? You're living in some kind of dream land. Do you not see how many cases end up in front of Federal Judges, and you say there's no need......
The fact that people actively seek interpretation does not indicate that interpretation is necessary to understand the words, but only that the legal profession continues to be paid for seeking interpretation.
It does say....A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state
The sentence is purely explanatory. It has no legal force.
Of course, you've had this explained to you 100 times already, but you obviously don't give a crap.
If it's explanatory, then it's explaining that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect the right of states to form and arm militias.
I won't waste my time arguing the validity of that idiotic claim. All that matters is that the second part of the sentence is what has legal force. "Shall not be infringed" couldn't be more clear or specific.
Why?
The day the Constitution was signed, there was no related case law. Yet the Constitution existed in full effect. Also, the simple fact that a law can be enforced at gunpoint does not render it constitutional.
Yes it did.
It did not. There was no related case law to refer to.
Since then case after case after case has built up, to the point where the Supreme Court will, in almost every case, refer back to previous cases.
The Heller case (as it's one of the most relevant to this topic) referred back to United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174
Case law exists because of the courts. The Constitution exists with or without the courts. Set Dred Scott v. Sanford, for example, against the 14th Amendment.
They didn't make their interpretation in isolation of the previous 200 years of case law. They may have added stuff, but they certainly knew what they were talking about in regards to other cases on the matter.
See previous. Also, the Constitution requires NO interpretation. It is quite clear in what it says.
If you have a problem and you go to the court, then you have to accept the ruling of the court. Lawyers will talk about previous case law, they might think they have a chance of changing previous law, it doesn't happen much, however everything will revolve around what when on before.
Indeed, and whether constitutional or not, as it will be enforced at gunpoint if need be.
So, the Heller case didn't refer back to Presser, Miller or Cruikshank then?
Of course, I did not say that. Try again.
The Constitution needs no interpretation? You're living in some kind of dream land. Do you not see how many cases end up in front of Federal Judges, and you say there's no need......
The fact that people actively seek interpretation does not indicate that interpretation is necessary to understand the words, but only that the legal profession continues to be paid for seeking interpretation.
Consequently, the Constitution has 'no problem' with reasonable restrictions on citizens' rights that are perceived as common sense measures to the average person, such as prohibiting felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.
Then go ahead and amend the 2nd to give government the power to restrict of ban weapons you don't like.And your link to any evidence the Framers thought that way, is where?
Lol. They didn't think in those precise terms, because they knew no differently. They didn't know today's weapons. They only knew what they had. And the weapons of their age had limited capability. The musket was not the most practical weapon for criminals. The pistol of the day was only practical at close range. Neither could be reloaded quickly. As such, a spree shooting was impossible.
Right On!!
There's one helluva difference in 2 rounds a minute vs 500 rounds a minute. Also a considerable difference in a cannon ball and a cruise missile.
Let us know how that goes for you.
Only an idiot doesn't know how much effort and activity it takes to amend the constitution.
Indeed, to intentionally prevent malevolent interests from arbitrarily changing it.
I'm a fan of Thomas Jefferson....he wrote that he believed the constitution and bill of rights should be reviewed and amended periodically
Yes, by the people. Not by the courts nor by arbitrary fiat.
I'll give ten to one odds if there had been caches of automatic weapons and nukes around the original would have read one helluva lot different.
A vain wager.
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.
The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.
So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".
But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
The 2nd amendment does not say "Except for felons" or "Except as provided by law". Why not?
The 4th amendment bans searches and seizure, but not all of them: It specifically names unreasonable searches and seizures.
The 5th amendment says that no one can be jailed or executed etc... but makes an exception: unless there is "due process of law".
Even the 13th amendment that prohibits slavery or involuntary servitude, makes an exception: "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted."
But the 2nd amendment, which forbids government from taking away or restricting our right to keep and bear arms, is conspicuously devoid of any such language. As written, it permits NO exceptions or "reasonable restrictions". Period.
Why?
There's an important characteristic of the people's right to keep and bear arms, which might explain why the 2nd is written without qualifications. It says "Since X is so, the people's RKBA cannot be taken away or restricted." Unlike the 4th, 5th, and 13th, the 2nd does NOT say "except by due process of law". And it does NOT say "unless the person is a certain type of extreme criminal", and etc.
To make up an extreme example, suppose some guy goes into a restaurant, pulls out a gun and blows away half a dozen people. The cops show up and surround him, and one cop says, "Give me your gun right now." The guy says, "Sorry, the 2nd amendment says my right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, PERIOD, so you have no authority to make me give you my gun." And this with gunsmoke in the air and bodies bleeding on the floor next to him.
Many of the people who wrote the 2nd were lawyers, and knew well the effect that certain words have when included, or omitted, from legislation. And yet they chose to omit ANY exceptions to the ban on government taking people's guns away. Strictly speaking, that would even include the extreme example I just gave: Cops can't take away the gun of a murderer at the scene of his crime.
Many people use this as the reason why the 2nd amendment MUST have been intended to implicitly allow for exceptions: It's impossible that the Framers could have intended for murderers to retain their weapons immediately after committing their murders. Yet a truly strict reading of the 2nd, forbids any govt official (including police) from taking the mass-murderer's gun.
So what could the Framers' intention have been, in omitting any exceptions?
Remember that it is GOVERNMENT that is being forbidden from taking away people's weapons. And the foremost reason it's forbidden, is so that the people can use them against government itself, if/when the government becomes tyrannical. And the Framers knew that if government were given even the tiniest exception, there would be a tendency to turn that tiny loophole into more and more twisted, warped excuses to take guns away anyway, far beyond the "reasonable" exception of being able to take away a mass-murderer's gun at the scene of his crime.
The only way the Framers could find of avoiding the far-greater evil of a tyrannical government disarming its people, was to make NO EXCEPTIONS WHATSOEVER to an explicit ban on government disarming even one of us.
So where does that leave us on the question of the cops taking the mass murderer's gun at the restaurant?
It's inconceivable that the Framers would want the murderer to retain his gun even as they haul him off to jail.
But it's VERY conceivable that the Framers would want government to have NOT THE SLIGHTEST EXCUSE, NO MATTER HOW "REASONABLE", to take away the weapons of their populace in general. Because the slightest excuse, the tiniest exception, could be stretched into a huge loophole. And the Framers regarded a government that could somehow finagle its way into disarming its own people, as a far greater threat than the occasional murderous nutcase in a restaurant.
And history has proven the Framers right, time and again.
Should we amend the Constitution, changing the 2nd amendment to officially empower government to take away the right of, say, murderers, to own and carry guns?
Some would think it's obvious that we should, to make the law "really" right. But consider the potential cost.
My own guess is, the Framers intended for an exception to be made in such a case... but not by any government official. The restaurant mass-murderer tells the cops they have no power to take his gun. The cop responds by cracking the guy's skull, hard, and taking away his gun anyway. Did the cop violate the strict words of the 2nd amendment by doing so? Yes. But is there a jury in the world that will convict the cop for it? Probably not.
The Constitution puts the ultimate fate of anyone accused of breaking laws, into the hands of a JURY. A groupd of the accused guy's own peers, people pretty much like him. NOT government officials. And that was so the only people who can find, or even invent, exceptions to the law, are ordinary civilians: the ones on the jury. Today this is called "Jury Nullification". And I suggest that this is exactly what the Framers had in mind when the wrote the 2nd amendment with NO exceptions and NO "reasonable restrictions" on guns and other such weapons.
The 2nd amendment is a restriction on GOVERNMENT. But not on a jury.
So when the murderer from the restaurant brings charges against the cop for taking away his gun, the cop gets a chance to explain to a JURY why he did it. His explanation will probably take less than ten seconds. And the jury (whose members wouldn't be there if they hadn't been accepted by the cop) will certainly decide that the cop should not be found guilty of violating the clear language of the 2nd, in that case. Because the JURY (and nobody else) has the power to make "reasonable exceptions".
But at the same time, when government makes the slightest move toward disarming even a little of its populace by legislation, they can be met with the absolute, no-exceptions ban codified by the 2nd amendment. No loopholes, no "reasonable exceptions", no nothing. ANY legislation that infringes on the absolute right to KBA, is unconstitutional. Period.
I suspect that's how the Framers expected this particular law to work.
Can I prove it? No. When I meet one of the Framers, I'll ask him. Until that time, I can only guess, based on the records they have left behind... and the fact that they put NONE of the usual qualifiers, into the 2nd amendment. If anyone can come up with a better guess, I'd be happy to hear it.
a. The framer's had many of their discussions / debates in a tavern;
or
b. The framers chose the words "arms" and not "guns" and arms included the sword, and flintlock firearms carried by the infantry and used by most 18th Century hunters to bring home the dinner. The Brown Bess being the most common which at its best could fire four rounds a minute and had an effective range of about 100 yards.
[in re b. a classroom of kids could most likely run away after the first round an most of them would be out of range before the second ball could be fired - point to consider]
or
c. Over tankards of ale the bill of rights was discussed, argued about and finally agreed upon, likely when the ale was gone or the tavern owner tossed them out, before they could imagine the weapons misused by 21st Century mad men.
The Court's interpretive authority in no way 'modifies' or 'adds to' the Constitution, to maintain otherwise is ignorant idiocy.·The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; “but that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument.'
·
·
Alright, NO EVASION. If the USSC doesn't say something is unconstitutional, it isn't unconstitutional.
What I see is that you want to talk about the Constitution, but ignore the arbiters of the Constitution.
You're interpreting the Constitution incorrectly. The 2nd amendment says "the peoples" right may not be abridged. It doesn't say that a "person" may not have to meet certain standards. You're putting yourself above the courts despite having missed such a basic concept. Outright outlawing of guns would be unconstitutional. Registration of weapons and barring certain people from ownership, like criminals and the insane, is notIt doesn't matter what the courts say. If something violates the Constitution, then it is unconstitutional. It is the Constitution itself that is the authority, not any corrupt courts or judges who may fail to uphold it.Alright, NO EVASION. If the USSC doesn't say something is unconstitutional, it isn't unconstitutional.
