jillian
Princess
again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.
CDZ Comparing Guns and Motor Vehicles in the US
- Thread starter jwoodie
- Start date
again, read the case. then speak with some level of knowledge.
B. Kidd
Diamond Member
Common sense trumps liberal laywer legalese.........everytime.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
??? Are you two really quibbling over whether one of you should provide a link to Heller and whether the other of you should endeavor to look it up? For Christ's sake! Are you both mature adults?
I shocked at the (presumably a mature adult) person who asked for the link did so for the case is one of the things a person engaging in a gun control/rights discussion should be at least aware of to the extent that they'd know to Google it if they needed to refer to it for some reason. I am equally shocked, however, that upon being asked for a link to a published document the other (presumably a mature adult) one of you refused to provide it, particularly after having referred to it.
- Here is an objective summary of Heller: SUMMARY OF D.C. V. HELLER .
- Here is the Court's actual Heller decision/opinion along with the dissenting opinions of two other SC justices who heard the case: District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
- Here is one writer's thinking (interpretation and argument) on Heller, that is a well thought out and well presented discussion: Yale Law Journal - Open Carry for All: Heller and Our Nineteenth-Century Second Amendment . ("Well thought out and well presented" does not mean right or wrong, it means well researched, the information gathered well analyzed, the writer's thoughts well organized.) That document was easily found using the following Google search: "scholarly analysis of supreme court heller decision".
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #64
Yes, there is. Read the Second Amendment to the Constitution. It is absolutely clear about this right that belongs to the people,and in forbidding government from infringing this right.
I give little credence to the opinions of corrupt public servants trying to claim a power to themselves that the Constitution explicitly denies them.
jillian
Princess
the second amendment, dear, said you have the right to a gun for a well-regulated militia. no one believed, for hundreds of years, that there was a private right of gun ownership there.
then scalia wrote heller. but even heller says reasonable regulation is permissible and appropriate.
you do understand that our constitution is defined by our caselaw because we're a common law country, right?
jillian
Princess
it is not my job to provide him with the basic information he should have to discuss this subject.... particularly when he is making demands to be paid for educating himself. right? of course right.
that said, in saying there is merit to both the majority opinion and the dissent, well, there are arguments. but really, the dissent is irrelevant (even though the dissent in Heller is far better an opinion than the majority opinion and far more consistent with precedent) because, ultimately, the dissent has no bearing on how laws should be read. that is why, i always start with scale's own holding which was that only a total ban is unconstitutional... and there is no problem with reasonable regulation.
but the person you directed your post to, can't even get to that very limited place and whined that no regulation is permissible. that isn't consistent even with heller's extreme holding.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
Wrong...everyone knew you had an individual right to own a gun till the left decided they wanted to keep people from owning guns.....then all of a sudden that actual understanding had to be taken to court......so the Justices could tell the left that they were wrong.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
As Abatis pointed out, the right to self defense and the right to keep and bear arms exists outside of the Constitution....it is not created by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.....
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,560
- 52,807
- 2,290
Yeah...mass shootings are not the problem...it is the everyday gun violence of career criminals in our inner cities murdering other career criminals that is the problem.........last year there were only 9 deaths due to mass public shootings...out of 8,124 gun murders......
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #70
That is not what it says, as is obvious to anyone who reads it, having a basic grasp of the English language. It clearly affirms a right to keep and bear arms, it states that this right belongs to the people, and it forbids this right from being infringed. It couldn't be any more clear than it is. The American people have a right to keep and bear arms, and government is to keep its filthy hands off of this right.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #71
The Constitution is most certainly not defined by case law. It is defined by what is clearly written therein.
It is only through blatant corruption that public servants have been allowed to twist it away from its clear meaning. Perverting and twisting the Constitution does not define it.
rightwinger
Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
- Aug 4, 2009
- 298,531
- 223,803
- 3,615
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #73
Only those who do not agree with it, and do not want it to be obeyed, claim that there is any lack of clarity in what is written, and that there is any need for courts to “interpret” it away from what it clearly says.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Nonsense.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI; the interpretive authority of the courts is settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Indeed, the notion of the Constitution being “defined by what is clearly written therein” is itself interpretation, nothing more than subjective opinion absent consensus by jurists through the process of judicial review, consistent with that settled, accepted case law.
320 Years of History
Gold Member
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
What is clear is that it was the original intent and understanding of the Framing Generation that the courts would continue to subject laws to judicial review as had been the case for well over a century before the advent of the Foundation Era:
“The generation that framed the Constitution presumed that courts would declare void legislation that was repugnant or contrary to the Constitution. They held this presumption because of colonial American practice. By the early seventeenth century, English law subjected the by-laws of corporations to the requirement that they not be repugnant to the laws of the nation. The early English settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts were originally corporations and so these settlements were bound by the principle that colonial legislation could not be repugnant to the laws of England. Under this standard, colonial lawyers appealed approximately 250 cases from colonial courts to the English Privy Council, and the Crown reviewed over 8500 colonial acts.
After the American Revolution, this practice continued. State court judges voided state legislation inconsistent with their respective state constitutions. The Framers of the Constitution similarly presumed that judges would void legislation repugnant to the United States Constitution.”
Why We Have Judicial Review
What the Constitution clearly says is that government is authorized to enact measures reflecting the will of the American people through their elected representatives, where the courts are a check on government authority, as the courts are the means by which the people seek relief when they believe government has acted beyond its scope, and has overreached beyond that authority.
The courts in turn review measures subject to challenge in the context of relevant case law, and if a measure is not consistent with that case law, it is invalidated by the court; this is why the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.
Again, even the most bare-bones, literalist, strict-constructionist, just as the Constitution is 'clearly written' perception of the Constitution is itself interpretation, no more valid or appropriate that any other perception of the Founding Document.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
The Second Amendment says nothing about an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right to self-defense; but as we know the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment, and with regard to the Amendment that case law is Heller/McDonald.
The Supreme Court, as authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, interpreted the Second Amendment to recognize an individual right to possess a firearm and a right to self-defense, as expressed in the Heller ruling.
The Heller Court didn't need the actual words 'individual' and 'self-defense' in the Amendment to come to its conclusion, it did so using an 'original understanding' argument supported by pre-Foundation Era case law, state constitutions at the time of the Founding of the Republic, and post-Amendment jurisprudence.
This, then, is the nature of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts, where as the Heller ruling clearly illustrates, the meaning of the Constitution is often not 'clearly written' in its text.
C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
Correct.
To paraphrase Heller: the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not absolute, they are subject to reasonable restrictions by government – it is not a right to possess any weapon so desired for any purpose so desired any place so desired.
The issue is not whether government is authorized to regulate firearms – as clearly it is – rather, the issue is what regulatory measures are consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, and what measures are not.
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #79
It clearly identifies tbe right as belonging to the people This was long before Marxist principles were devised which used the term “the people” to refer to a statist collective, rather than to the actual individual people.
Everywhere that the term “the people” appears in the Constitution—or in any other contemporary document—it means the same thing, and refers to individual people. The right affirmed in the Second Amendment is no less a right of every individual free American than the rights affirmed elsewhere in the Bill of Rights. Certainly, there is no rational argument to be made that there is any intent anywhere in the Bill of Rights to affirm a “right” of government in opposition to the rights of individual people.
Circular logic. The courts illegally seized a power that the Constitution clearly did not intend them to have, to place themselves above both the Constitution and the will of their rightful masters, tbe people of tbe United States. You are using this illegitimate usurpation as an argument in defense of itself and of the corrupt fruits which it has brought forth..
The Constitution clearly forbids this right from being infringed. That the courts have ruled in favor of this right being infringed only proves how corrupt tbese courts have become.
jillian
Princess
it is what it says, and it's so "obvious" that for the hundreds of years before scalia got his little paws on it, no one believed the 2nd gave a private right of gun ownership.
and even wacky scalia said regulation is okay.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Biden's woes converge: Last-minute pardons under fire, calls for prosecution mount following Hur tape release- Started by Doc7505
- Replies: 19
-
300 person mall ‘meetup’ in New Jersey turns into brawl- Started by LeftofLeft
- Replies: 8
-
So after a terrible week for joe biden and being mocked by his peers, this cancer story suddenly appears- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 5
-
-
