2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[Dante]

you ignore the simple fact that, the people ARE the militia. If you disarm the people you cant have a militia.

you're mixed up

was that a legal argument used to win?

I did. In toto.
And you have no factual, rational response.

where are the comas and what do they suggest

 

[Dante]

[ In fact, conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, a conservative Fourth Circuit judge, likened Heller to Roe v. Wade, and suggested that Heller was a “new” form of judicial activism based in “originalism.” Conservative Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner agreed in equally stark terms, writing that Heller reflected not conservatism, but rather “freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”

To be sure, not all conservatives agree with this critique from the right and, in any event, Heller is now on the books and the rule of law requires lower courts to abide by it.

But the perceived judicial activism underlying Heller is relevant to how lower court judges, especially many judicial conservatives, analyze challenges to gun laws less extreme than the handgun ban at issue in Heller. In those cases, judges must decide whether to extend Heller’s core holding — which, in its narrowest form, is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense — in order to strike down firearm restrictions in other circumstances. In making that decision, lower court judges are guided by cautionary language in Heller itself that the Second Amendment is “not unlimited” and that the opinion should not “cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions,” which are “presumptively lawful.” ] - quotes

Justice Scalia, the Second Amendment, and Judicial Conservatives

Following Justice Scalia’s famous opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, conservative and liberal judges generally agree on the scope of the Second Amendment right.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[Dante]

[
On June 28, 2010, a deeply divided Supreme Court upholds gun-ownership rights within homes on a national basis, expanding on a 2008 decision applying to the District of Columbia.


In 2008, the Court in a 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller held that a D.C. law that restricted unlicensed functional handguns within homes violated the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the Heller majority opinion. “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,” Scalia said.


“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution,” Scalia concluded. “The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” Voting with Justice Scalia were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito.


Two years later, Justice Alito wrote for the same majority bloc in McDonald v. Chicago, where the Court answered a question it didn’t tackle in 2008: Does the Second Amendment protect against state infringement of the right to possess a handgun for self-defense? ] - quotes

On this day, a divided Supreme Court rules on the Second Amendment | Constitution Center

On June 28, 2010, a deeply divided Supreme Court upholds gun-ownership rights within homes on a national basis, expanding on a 2008 decision applying to the District of Columbia.

constitutioncenter.org

 

[Dante]

The self-absorbed screechers of "Send Amendment!" will not address facts in teh case, but will instead quote things out of context and post narratives from strange bedfellows. So here...

the actual case...

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) ​

Docket No. 07-290

Argued: March 18, 2008

Decided: June 26, 2008

Annotation
Primary Holding
Private citizens have the right under the Second Amendment to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia.

Read More

---

Syllabus

SYLLABUS
OCTOBER TERM, 2007
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER


SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v.HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appealsfor the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26,2008

District of Columbia law bans handgun possession bymaking it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibitingthe registration of handguns; provides separately that no personmay carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief toissue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully

 

[Dante]

Dante took advantage of the ruling. Plans on doing so again. But he is principled in following the law.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

you're mixed up

was that a legal argument used to win?


where are the comas and what do they suggest

it doesnt have to be the amendment is clear the militia is the people and the people need to be armed.

 

[Dante]

it doesnt have to be the amendment is clear the militia is the people and the people need to be armed.

What in the wacky world are you going on about? Where was that argued in the Court and was it in the decision? Try and posting something relevant and of value.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What in the wacky world are you going on about? Where was that argued in the Court and was it in the decision? Try and posting something relevant and of value.

the premise is that the court got it wrong the simple fact that the people are the militia belays that claim. If you disarm the people, there can be no militia.

 

[M14 Shooter]

where are the comas and what do they suggest

Irrelevant, as I proved - and you cannot demonstrate otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[ In fact, conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia
The right of the people.

As no one has the right to associate with the militia in any way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the exercise thereof, as protected by the 2nd, MUST exist independent of a person's relationship to the militia.

Thus: The court got it right.
You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The self-absorbed screechers of "Send Amendment!" will not address facts in teh case, but will instead quote things out of context and post narratives from strange bedfellows. So here...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
Not the right of the militia
Not the right of the people in the militia
The right of the people.

As no one has the right to associate with the militia in any way, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the exercise thereof, as protected by the 2nd, MUST exist independent of a person's relationship to the militia.

Thus: The court got it right.
You cannot demonstrate otherwise.

 

[80zephyr]

No you do not. That is teh whole point.

take your Junior High School level of knowledge of American history and shove it.

They didn't live the Constitution?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”

Pretty clear language

 

[Robert W]

This argument has been around for a very long time. The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” It's incredible that it took a heavily stacked court to rule as they did. I support gun ownership. Have been a gun owner. I have never been in or desired to join a militia. Why would I? I'm no Timothy McVeigh.


Opinion | Commas, Common Sense and Justice - John McWhorter - You’re reading the John McWhorter newsletter. A Columbia University linguist explores how race and language shape our politics and culture.

Like language itself, punctuation is always in a state of flux.

If you are of a certain age, notice how you are likely using exclamation points more lately. It has become a mark of agreeability in a way that would mystify a time traveler from as recently as a couple decades ago. “See you in a bit!” “I looked for you yesterday but you weren’t there!” I now email like that.

This is part of a long story Florence Hazrat tells in “On the Mark: From Periods to Interrobangs, How Punctuation Remade the World,” due out in August...

It’s a roller coaster of a story. Ancient Greek had no spaces between words, Hazrat writes, and Aristophanes of Byzantium, a librarian in Alexandria, found it cumbersome...

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the ruling, wrote that the comma set apart a mere preface to the “operative clause” of the amendment — the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hazrat writes that Scalia’s analysis followed the tradition of the most conservative pro-gun advocates to take the part of the amendment before that comma as throat-clearing, with all the intention of the amendment coming after that comma. Scalia argued that that preface in no way qualified or limited the intention of the Bill of Rights’ framers.

Essentially Scalia argued that the Founders meant, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms — something separate — shall not be infringed.”

Hazrat argues that commas should play no role in interpreting the amendment...

Rather, we should accept the most plausible interpretation of what the words mean. Until this century there was a broad understanding that the Founders meant that all clauses of the amendment, no matter how many there are, should be read together. As in, people should be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.

I would add that the comma is less the issue than that Scalia’s interpretation is hopelessly forced. Scalia persuasively argued that in the late 18th century, “bear arms” referred to using weapons in various ways, not just in a militia. But it still leaves a crucial question: Why would the Founders bring up one type of gun ownership — when serving in a militia — if they wanted to approve all kinds of gun ownership? If they wanted to preface their proclamation, as Scalia claimed, they could have mentioned not only serving in a militia, but self-defense and hunting.

Under Scalia’s analysis, the following sentence would pass muster: “Basketball, aiding in health, sports, shall be encouraged.” Such a sentence is beyond clumsy.

It insults the Founders to suppose that this sort of convolution was the best they could do when adjudicating something of such gravity.

It comes down to this: “Officials, being prone to partisan bias, Supreme Court justices, should interpret language according to what is most intuitive.”

The Court held:​

• The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms
• This right is not dependent on militia service
• The core lawful purpose is self-defense, particularly in the home
• D.C.'s total ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment
• D.C.'s requirement that firearms be kept inoperable at all times is unconstitutional

Facts of the Case​

Dick Anthony Heller was a D.C. special police officer authorized to carry a handgun while on duty at the Federal Judicial Center. He applied for a registration certificate to keep a handgun at home, but the District denied his application.

At the time, D.C. law:

• Generally prohibited the possession of handguns
• Required residents to keep lawfully owned firearms "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device"
• Prohibited carrying a pistol without a license, which the police chief could issue for one year

Heller sued, claiming these provisions violated his Second Amendment right to keep a functional firearm in his home for self-defense.

 

[Robert W]

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

Hasrat is not a justice on the supreme court.

Operative Clause: "Right of the People"​

The Court found that "the people" refers to individuals, not a collective body:

• Consistent with usage in the First and Fourth Amendments
• All six other provisions using "the people" refer to individual rights
• Nowhere else does "the people" refer to a select militia subset

"Keep and Bear Arms"​

The Court interpreted this phrase:

• "Keep": To have or possess, most naturally read as "to have weapons"
• "Bear": To carry for confrontation, not limited to military context
• "Arms": Weapons of offense or defense, not limited to military weapons

Historical Understanding​

The opinion examined extensive historical evidence:

English Background​

"By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects."

 

[Robert W]

stop trolling every thread with nonsense

And you are the authority over every one of us. We must obey the master.