The US Supreme Court has another chance to prove that US justice is not the best money can buy in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. Bouyed by its success in DC v. Heller, the Cato institute is yet again posed to prove the US justice runs by the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules. Unlike DC v. Heller, they are much more blatant that they have been plaintiff shopping in their attempt to rewrite the constitution to their interpretation. Added by the stupidity of the American public regarding the meaning of the Second Amendment as a guarantee against the establishment of a standing army now that the military budget has gone out of control (remember that "Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public" P.T. Barnum), they may just pull it off.
The rest of the article contains a fascinating description of Patrick Henry's ideas concerning the 2nd amendment. This, according to historian Henry Mayer, perfectly supports the belief held by many that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable.
What's your opinion? Is Laci right in saying, "[f]ive supreme court justices may again show that my dog has a better understanding of the law than they do?"
Please leave a comment.
It is entirely possible that the Supreme Court rule against justice and common sense.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is equally possible that they'll rule in favour of McDonald.
As the article notes, States have powers, not rights.
ReplyDeleteIf the 2A was about States having the power to raise/maintain militias, the Founders would not have used the word "Rights."
tick tock, tick tock
Sounds like Laci already knows how it will play out.
ReplyDeleteI love how Laci denigrates Scalia, a man who has more class & tact than she could ever dream of.
ReplyDeleteMikeb says:
ReplyDelete. . . the belief held by many that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable.
Here--let me fix that for you:
. . . the belief held by a few confused extremists that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable.
Ah--much better.
"This, according to historian Henry Mayer, perfectly supports the belief held by many that the current understanding of the 2nd amendment is so twisted and distorted from its original sense that it's practically unrecognizable."
ReplyDeleteReally?
That's not at all what I got out of that. What I got was that Mr. Mayer was contradictory in his conclusion, yet seemed to understand where Patrick Henry stood on the subject.
From LtCC's webpage:
...Clearly speaking of the problem of militia organization, what he actually said is, "The great object is that every man [of the militia] be armed.--But can the people to afford to pay for double sets of arms &c.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance...."
Now, the comment is truncated there, so Patrick Henry may have gone on to further elaborate how he felt on the subject, but with what was said right there, I get the following:
1) PH was in favor of every man in the militia being armed.
2) He recognized that not every man in the militia was armed despite the efforts of lawmakers to make it so.
3) He distrusted Congress to have control of the militia, putting it as "...the possibly dangerous union of the purse and sword vested in Congress."
4) PH was a states' soverign power (often called states' rights) kind of guy, as opposed to a federalist (or federal power overruling individual states).
Mr. Mayer even admits this:
If Henry's remarks were intended to cast doubt upon the adequacy of a hypothetical Congressional militia law, they only affirmed his commitment to the traditional method of state control over a militia that, far from being a privatized collection of gun-toting individuals, was a community temporarily called to arms and always subservient to public authority and law.
and here:
"I am firmly convinced that the Second Amendment is concerned with the state's power to control its own militia as a civilian alternative to a professional standing army."
So, while Mr. Mayer definitely recognizes that PH was very much pro-militia, as long as the control remained out of the hands of Congress, and with the States themselves, he clearly seems to believe that somehow this contradicts the concept of civilians individually owning guns.
Nothing that PH wrote or said would indicate that he believed that. Just the opposite, in fact, is written in the first and third sentences above by PH (bolded).
Additionally, we must consider what a militia is, compared to a professional standing army. It is be definition, a collection of individual citizens, each of whom comes to together with their fellow citizens for the purpose of common defense. How would that be possible if the individuals were themselves forbidden or restricted from individually owning arms? That would force the necessity of arsenals, provided for by the state. While PH may have wished the states to augment their militias with such arsenals (based upon his lament that despite their efforts, not every man was armed), he clearly did not advocate that when he said sentences one and three above.
Mr. Mayer may believe that nature of a militia controlled by the state is mutually exclusive of individuals having the right to keep and bear arms, but NOTHING PH said or wrote can be used to back up that assertion. In fact, Patrick Henry's words do the opposite.
And now for something completely different.
ReplyDeleteTher seems to be some agreement on both sides that a McDonald victory is a sure thing. As likely as it may be, it's not a 100% sure thing. So one might ask: What would be the consequences of a McDonald loss? Here is my opinion.
Gun control advocates and their supporters in politics and the media are jubilant (no-brainer). They endlessly point out that any and all gun laws are permissable by any state or locality, including total handgun bans and even total gun bans (although some may remember to deny that a total gun ban is what they want). However, in their jubilation many gun control advocates will reveal more gun laws than they usually like to discuss at one time, and they will reveal more extreme gun laws than they usually like to reveal at this point -- both things that they try to avoid lest they drive moderate gunowners further into the hardline camp.
As for gunowners, not only are their noses rubbed in the quantity end extremity of gun laws that might be forthcoming, but it is driven home with a vengeance that there now is no 2nd Amendment protection from any state or local gun laws, no matter how harsh, and they are reminded that the extent of Heller's protection from harsher federal laws remains largely unknown.
Gunowner advocates are then quick to drive home to all gunowners (and sympathizers) that the only things that stand between them and the harsh and extreme laws that the gun control advocates have been crowing about are: The stregnth of their lobbying organizations, their donations to and support of those organizations, their votes, and their own activism on all levels, especially if they have not yet been very active on the issue. The result: Even stronger resistance to gun control laws then has yet been seen so far.
Now I realize that a McDonald victory may be likely, but I am interested if anyone agrees or disagrees with my projected consequences of a theoretical McDonald loss. If anyone agrees with my consequences, I would like to know what you think that means for the success of gun control advocates in moving their agenda forward.
The dog says:
ReplyDeleteThe US Supreme Court has another chance to prove that US justice is not the best money can buy in the case of McDonald v. Chicago. Bouyed by its success in DC v. Heller, the Cato institute is yet again posed to prove the US justice runs by the golden rule: those with the gold make the rules.
So, in our canine friend's fevered imaginings, who would be paying whom for a ruling that states shall not infringe that which shall not be infringed?
Fishy Jay,
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are if McDonald loses it would set back the pro-gun movement of striking down gun laws, but wouldn’t have much affect on new gun control legislation. Lawmakers would be just afraid of being voted out of office by their constituents after a McDonald loss, but states and localities that have long been anti-gun (and shielded by a voting majority that does not care about gun rights) would continue to come up with new and exciting ways to piss off gun owners.
-TS
TS: "My thoughts are if McDonald loses it would set back the pro-gun movement of striking down gun laws, but wouldn’t have much affect on new gun control legislation."
ReplyDeleteMy "different" prediction (for the reasons given in my previous post) is that, contrary to the hopes of gun control advocates, it would make passing new gun control laws HARDER.
TS: "states and localities that have long been anti-gun (and shielded by a voting majority that does not care about gun rights) would continue to come up with new and exciting ways to piss off gun owners."
Good point. Places like Chicago and New Jersey will continue to remind gunowners that if they ever acquiesce to to "strict gun control" then their reward will be...still more and harsher gun control and bans.