When 2nd Amendment Saves Lives

[2aguy]

I understand the role of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court could, if they chose, decide that the Second Amendment allows individuals to keep "bear arms" if they choose. As ridiculous as it sounds, the Supreme Court has been ridiculous in the past.

The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.

The reality is that Heller doesn't say what you think it says. You take one quote from a whole body of text, and ignore the main part of what they said.

this is called "Projection,"

In its malignant forms, it is a defense mechanism in which the ego defends itself against disowned and highly negative parts of the self by denying their existence in themselves and attributing them to others, breeding misunderstanding and causing untold interpersonal damage.[2]

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You guys see Abortion in the Constitution, where it is not mentioned once............and ignore the plain language of "Keep and Bear...."

You truly are insane...

 

[2aguy]

The issue is that Supreme Court interpretations can, and have been, changed over time.

The Second Amendment says nothing about carrying arms. The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals "right to keep and bear arms" is protected. They've said a few things about what they think the "right to keep and bear arms" is, but really what they've said is not something that will stand up to strong scrutiny.

In Heller they said: "(f) None of the Court's precedents forecloses the Court's interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876), nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), refutes the individual-rights interpretation."

This is basically upholding Presser, which said: "We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

So, the individual view of the Second Amendment, that an individual can "bear arms", still means that an individual cannot meet other men and "associate together as a military organization, or to drill or parade with arms in cities". It's simply not protected.

Now, if there is a clear cut "you can carry arms because the Second Amendment says so", it's not in Heller.

Heller also said "(1) 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."

"such as self-defense within the home"

They also said: "It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:"

And: "For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

This does NOT come across, to me, as the Supreme Court saying that there is a right to carry in the Second Amendment.

You quoted one thing. I didn't take the time to find that quote, but the part that says "this is what the Supreme Court holds" talks about a right to self defense IN THE HOME (more than once), not outside of the home.

You truly are insane....

The Second Amendment says nothing about carrying arms.


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.

 

[2aguy]

It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.

That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, and the right to decide whether to have a child or not are all protected liberties safeguarded by the Constitution – that the words ‘privacy’ or ‘marriage’ might not be present in no manner undermines the courts’ authority to invalidate laws and measures which seek to violate the right to privacy or the right to marry.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Likewise, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive, finite understanding of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.

The same is true concerning the carrying of firearms; indeed, the courts have already heard cases challenging prohibitions on carrying firearms. In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.

And your insanity continues....

although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.
==========


1. Operative Clause.



a. “Right of the People.”



The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.5

-----------

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.6 What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. As we said in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259, 265 (1990):

----

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.

--------

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose.

-----

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

---

Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people.” We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.



------

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

---

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous armsbearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

----

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

----

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individualrights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.



https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

[2aguy]

It was the Framers’ intent that the courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court; to interpret the Founding Document and establish its meaning.

That certain words or phrases aren’t in the text of the Constitution doesn’t mean the concepts and principles they engender are beyond the authority of the courts to review.

The right to privacy, the right to marry, and the right to decide whether to have a child or not are all protected liberties safeguarded by the Constitution – that the words ‘privacy’ or ‘marriage’ might not be present in no manner undermines the courts’ authority to invalidate laws and measures which seek to violate the right to privacy or the right to marry.

As Justice Kennedy explained in Lawrence:

“Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

Likewise, the Framers did not presume to have a comprehensive, finite understanding of the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment – the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, although the word ‘individual’ is nowhere to be found in the text of the Amendment.

The same is true concerning the carrying of firearms; indeed, the courts have already heard cases challenging prohibitions on carrying firearms. In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.

Did you not read your own quote from the nutjob Kennedy......that clearly refutes your entire premise?

In 2013 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Illinois could not ban the carrying of concealed firearms by refusing to issue permits to do so.

 

[Kilroy2]

Not exactly.

Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.

Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.

It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue.

well you can say the 2nd amendment is the basis but it has to be interpreted. Thus if a judgment ruling is unfavorable, they will eventually bring the case before the court again when they fell that they can get a favorable ruling.

because of the different ruling it is clear the 2nd amendment is not the defining issue.

There are many different rulings on the issue. The issue of public safety can weigh heavily on any interpretation.

History and tradition can play a factor. OF course the interpretation of the 2nd amendment can play a factor.

So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.

Militia is well defined

 

[maybelooking]

Theres not a damn thing vague about "shall not be infringed".

you can't get anymore specific than that.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.

Militia is well defined

If you look at it properly, it's actually clear what it is.

An individual has a right to own weapons, so the US government can't call people up to the militia and then take their weapons off them.

And, an individual has the right to be in the militia, so the US government can't stop them being in the militia.

This is all designed to protect the militia as stated in the first part of the amendment.

Nothing about carrying guns, hunting, self defense (on an individual level). Quite clear.

 

[progressive hunter]

Yet why do some states allow concealed weapons while others do not as an example of the many different gun laws in place and can easily be changed at any time.

It is clear that case law decisions are interpreted differently by each state. It is even interpreted differently by what political party is in power or in general how people feel about the issue.

well you can say the 2nd amendment is the basis but it has to be interpreted. Thus if a judgment ruling is unfavorable, they will eventually bring the case before the court again when they fell that they can get a favorable ruling.

because of the different ruling it is clear the 2nd amendment is not the defining issue.

There are many different rulings on the issue. The issue of public safety can weigh heavily on any interpretation.

History and tradition can play a factor. OF course the interpretation of the 2nd amendment can play a factor.

So in my opinion the 2nd amendment is not the defining factor. It is really to vague.

Militia is well defined

the only interpretation of the 2nd A need is the "RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE" and the 9-10th A's where it says THE PEOPLE HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY,,

 

[westwall]

If you look at it properly, it's actually clear what it is.

An individual has a right to own weapons, so the US government can't call people up to the militia and then take their weapons off them.

And, an individual has the right to be in the militia, so the US government can't stop them being in the militia.

This is all designed to protect the militia as stated in the first part of the amendment.

Nothing about carrying guns, hunting, self defense (on an individual level). Quite clear.

"Keep, and BEAR arms"

Pretty simple.

 

[Abatis]

That's the problem. Lots of morons read it, but are too stupid to know what it says.

And morons like you are living proof that in our current "enlightened" nation, the Federalist's arguments against adding a bill of rights, and warnings of the dangers to liberty if one was added, were absolutely correct.

 

[Abatis]

Our government doesn't steal power from anyone. Our elected representatives pass laws and the supreme court interprets them, as our constitution requires.

Your supid, collectivist ideas about what the Constitution is, what it does and what the Bill of Rights is and what it does, guarantees that the primary product of government is usurpation.

 

[Abatis]

regulation is not infringement. There are lots of reasons why some lose their right to have guns. You don't understand that?

As long as regulations is confined to the legitimate powers of government. The government's power to regulate the militia is not the power to command and dictate to citizens who are not enrolled in the militia.

Your basic misunderstanding and ignorance of such things is the foundation for all the BS you spout.

I'm saying the constitution makes it their call to make. If you don't like it, vote for people who will change the laws. How long have you opposed our constitution?

The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and government only possesses the specific powers "We the People" granted to it in the Constitution. All those powers and interests that are NOT included in the Constitution are retained by the people, either to be conferred to the states for the sates to perform the duties the people assign to them, OR . . . those retained powers are reserved as rights of the people, exceptions of powers never granted.

"We the People" do not posses "rights' because the the Bill of Rights says we have them, or that government gives them to us, or that government allows us to exercise them . . . "We the People" possess rights because "We the People" never granted to government any power to have any interest in, for example, the personal arms of the private citizen.

No it isn't. The constitution allows us to make laws concerning the 2nd as well as all the other amendments, and the supreme court interprets them.

Absolute unmitigated bullshit. The federal government only has the express powers enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

If you want to hear what the Supreme Court says on the subject? Here ya go:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

.

 

[maybelooking]

As long as regulations is confined to the legitimate powers of government. The government's power to regulate the militia is not the power to command and dictate to citizens who are not enrolled in the militia.

Your basic misunderstanding and ignorance of such things is the foundation for all the BS you spout.




The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers and government only possesses the specific powers "We the People" granted to it in the Constitution. All those powers and interests that are NOT included in the Constitution are retained by the people, either to be conferred to the states for the sates to perform the duties the people assign to them, OR . . . those retained powers are reserved as rights of the people, exceptions of powers never granted.

"We the People" do not posses "rights' because the the Bill of Rights says we have them, or that government gives them to us, or that government allows us to exercise them . . . "We the People" possess rights because "We the People" never granted to government any power to have any interest in, for example, the personal arms of the private citizen.



Absolute unmitigated bullshit. The federal government only has the express powers enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

If you want to hear what the Supreme Court says on the subject? Here ya go:

"That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent.​

​

This original and supreme will organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.​

​

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation."​

​

MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)​

.

very nice sir.

That spanking is a thing of beauty!!!!!!!!

 

[Abatis]

Then please interpret what well regulated militia means . . .

A "well regulated militia" is a descriptive term that is an acknowledgement of a militia company's high degree of skill and readiness in military exercise. It really describes a principle, an aspirational goal of opitimal perfection in operational order and condition to be attained and maintained by a military force. For a particular militia unit to ever be described as "well regulated" is an accolade, a compliment on their expertness in military exercise and practice (see Federalist 29).

The term has NOTHING to do with regulations or any government body being authorized to write or enforce regulations.

That is especially true for the term's use in the 2nd Amendment. This is not to say that no regulations for the militia can be writen and enforced, it just means that such authority and action does not (can not) flow from the 2nd Amendment.

As a legal point, in actual action and application, the 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to inform or held to inform upon any aspect of militia organization, training, control or deployment. The entirety of government authority over the militia is contained in the body of the Constitution, Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16 (Congress) and Art II, § 2, cl 1 (President).

.

 

[Abatis]

The only thing moronic is the wrongheaded notion that the Second Amendment isn’t subject to interpretation by the Supreme Court.

What's there to "interpret"?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the fully retained, fundamental right to arms of the people.

No aspect of the right to arms of the people was ever conferred to the care and control of government (including SCOTUS) through the Constitution. The Constitution did grant the federal government a narrow power to dictate certain duties related to the citizen and the arm chosen by the citizen to fulfill his obligation to enroll and serve in the militia and only for that term of service. Once the citizen was deactivated, discharged or aged out, Congressional militia power over him and his militia arm evaporated.

BUT, since Congress federalized the state militias and evaporated both state militia powers and the citizen's militia obligation, all power Congress possessed over the citizen and his arms has also evaporated.

There were never ANY powers for Congress to claim over citizens who are not enrolled in the militia, under any interpretation of the constitutional authority of regulating the militia . . . The Canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- "the express mention of one thing excludes all others", absolutely demands it and SCOTUS certainly enforced it (see the cases where disputes over militia powers were decided).

The problem for you and other statists is, the entirety of modern (20th Century) Congressional power over the citizen and his arms has been usurped under either the power to tax (NFA-34) or the commerce clause (NFA-38 & GCA-68 and the hydra of federal gun laws that have grown from those Acts), but was defended outside the courts by claiming Congress' power to regulate the militia.

Even in the heyday of the various 'collective right" perversions (1942 - 2008), when gun laws were challenged, they were claimed to be authorized under Congress' power to regulate the militia, but defended with arguments focused on the tax power or the commerce clause.

Please explain (and defend) that and how that allows SCOTUS to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment into creating what never was . . . All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

 

[Abatis]

Not exactly.

Government is at liberty to regulate firearms pursuant to Second Amendment jurisprudence; government may not regulate firearms in violation of that case law.

But that "case law" was was polluted and perverted by the "militia right" and "state's right" mutations, inserted in the federal courts in 1942 by lower federal courts purposefully ignoring and dismissing what SCOTUS demanded in Miller.

SCOTUS has never endorsed any variation of any "collective right" interpretation and the Court finally re-righted the constitutional ship in Heller, by invaliding US v Tot and Cases v US and all the illegitimate progeny of those two travesties.

.

 

[maybelooking]

What's there to "interpret"?

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give, grant, create or otherwise establish the fully retained, fundamental right to arms of the people.

No aspect of the right to arms of the people was ever conferred to the care and control of government (including SCOTUS) through the Constitution. The Constitution did grant the federal government a narrow power to dictate certain duties related to the citizen and the arm chosen by the citizen to fulfill his obligation to enroll and serve in the militia and only for that term of service. Once the citizen was deactivated, discharged or aged out, Congressional militia power over him and his militia arm evaporated.

BUT, since Congress federalized the state militias and evaporated both state militia powers and the citizen's militia obligation, all power Congress possessed over the citizen and his arms has also evaporated.

There were never ANY powers for Congress to claim over citizens who are not enrolled in the militia, under any interpretation of the constitutional authority of regulating the militia . . . The Canon of expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- "the express mention of one thing excludes all others", absolutely demands it and SCOTUS certainly enforced it (see the cases where disputes over militia powers were decided).

The problem for you and other statists is, the entirety of modern (20th Century) Congressional power over the citizen and his arms has been usurped under either the power to tax (NFA-34) or the commerce clause (NFA-38 & GCA-68 and the hydra of federal gun laws that have grown from those Acts), but was defended outside the courts by claiming Congress' power to regulate the militia.

Even in the heyday of the various 'collective right" perversions (1942 - 2008), when gun laws were challenged, they were claimed to be authorized under Congress' power to regulate the militia, but defended with arguments focused on the tax power or the commerce clause.

Please explain (and defend) that and how that allows SCOTUS to "interpret" the 2nd Amendment into creating what never was . . . All the 2nd Amendment "does" is redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.

in short (correct me if I'm wrong)

The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people. Only the government!!!!!!

 

[progressive hunter]

in short (correct me if I'm wrong)

The 2nd places NO LIMITS AT ALL on the people. Only the government!!!!!!

the government is required to protect the rights of the people,,

 

[Abatis]

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The case is about whether guns are protected outside of homes.

The reality is, they're not really.

Well, too bad for you but the dingbat NY AG conceded that a right to bear arms does exist outside the home, but inexplicably, only OUTSIDE NY CITY.

I thought this case was going to be a disaster for the pro-gun rights side but AG Letitia James gave it new life.

If you're feeling froggy, there's a thread on this case over in the 2nd Amendment subforum, I've posted my take on it quite a lot (in a thread that's only 10 posts).

 

[Abatis]

It also protects the right to be in the militia (bear arms). Beyond this it has no scope.

There is no right to "be in the militia" protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Defining who is obligated to serve and who is allowed to enroll and is allowed to serve is entirely a power of Congress. The organized militia is an entity and structure that is entirely a product of the Constitution and is entirely dependent upon the Constitution and the duly enacted laws by Congress (Militia Act of 1792). A militia comprised of citizens may only be called up, organized, trained and deployed following the process and rules set-out in the Constitution.

Since the ratification of the Constitution there was not and never has been, a right for private citizens to form themselves into militia nor assemble armed and drill and parade with arms without a law of the state or Congress authorizing that action (See Presser v Illinois).

As an aside, states like Massachusetts with abolitionist goals wanted to enact state laws saying Blacks could be enrolled in their state's militias and were soundly rebuffed. The Militia Act only allowed the "free able-bodied white male citizen" of the state to enroll and serve.

Even after the 14th Amendment, the way southern states justified their racist, discriminatory laws disarming US CITIZENS who were Black, any right to keep and bear arms, was to associate their state's recognition of a right to arms with militia eligibility. Of course the 2nd Amendment and protecting Black's right to arms, while being a significant impetus for the 14th Amendment, was not incorporated under the 14th Amendment so the 2nd had no effect on those state laws. But federal militia law was the "law of the land" so Blacks remained disarmed in those states.



.