Saturday, January 25, 2014

Gun Control: ‘Liberal’ TV Anchors Alter Stance On Second Amendment

I am blatantly ripping off the title of this piece mostly because it it pure rubbish.  You might have a big alteration in the US Main Stream Media "position" on the Second Amendment if they came out and said that a right to arms outside the Militia Context was pure rubbish.  But, people still to the rest of the sentence want to talk about "personal gun rights".

On its face, the Second Amendment comes right out and says "A well regulated militia being necessary for the Security of the Free state".  Well if its fucking necessary, then it MUST have some relevance.  That's why US v. Milller (307 U.S. 174 [1939]) says:

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
I have emphasised the above passage to point out that this decision says that the Amendment must be read as a WHOLE as the First sentence gives the purpose of the right and the second part tells how it would be implemented.  It's a sunset clause for those educated enough to understand it (which Scalia did not) You have just said that the Second Amendment is no longer valid if you say that the first part is irrelevant.  Although, for all his sophistry about Second Amendment linguistics, Scalia failed to actually address the Miller decision saying that it wasn't helpful to his analysis.

No shit, Sherlock, the decision totally contradicts what you did.  Especially if one reads the cryptic  Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840) reference at the end of this paragraph from Miller:

>In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.

Aymette  says:
To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark, that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested, their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides, "that no citizen of this State shall be compelled to bear arms, provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk and buffaloes, might carry his rifle every day, for forty years, and, yet, it would never be said of him, that he had borne arms, much less could it be said, that a private citizen bears arms, because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive.

Justice McReynolds taught law at Tennesse's Vanderbilt University, I am sure he was quite aware of this reference which has gotten lost in the mix. And what he is saying is that the Second Amendment's use of the phrase to keep and bear arms has a military sense, and no other.

Anyway, there is far more proof that the Second Amendment relates to an institution which is as relevant to modern US society as the direct appointment of Senators.   As such, it is no bar to gun control.

Or to once again quote Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972).  Reminder Justice Douglas was on the SCOTUS at the time of US v. Miller:
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL concurs, dissenting.
My views have been stated in substance by Judge Friendly, dissenting, in the Court of Appeals. 436 F.2d 30, 35. Connecticut allows its citizens to carry weapons, concealed or otherwise, at will, provided they have a permit. Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. 29-35, 29-38. Connecticut law gives its police no authority to frisk a person for a permit. Yet the arrest was for illegal possession of a gun. The only basis for that arrest was the informer’s tip on the narcotics. Can it be said that a man in possession of narcotics will not have a permit for his gun? Is that why the arrest for possession of a gun in the free-and-easy State of Connecticut becomes constitutional?
The police problem is an acute one not because of the Fourth Amendment, but because of the ease with which anyone can acquire a pistol. A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment, which reads, “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.”
There is under our decisions no reason why stiff state laws governing the purchase and possession of pistols may not be enacted. There is no reason why pistols may not be barred from anyone with a police record. There is no reason why a State may not require a purchaser of a pistol to pass a psychiatric test. There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police.
The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, “must be interpreted and applied” with the view of maintaining a “militia.”
“The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia – civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.” Id., at 178-179.
Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia. But if watering-down is the mood of the day, I would prefer to water down the Second rather than the Fourth Amendment. I share with Judge Friendly a concern that the easy extension of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, to “possessory offenses” is a serious intrusion on Fourth Amendment safeguards.
“If it is to be extended to the latter at all, this should be only where observation by the officer himself or well authenticated information shows `that criminal activity may be afoot.’” 436 F.2d, at 39, quoting Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 30.


  1. Poor Laci, still laboring under the false view that "the people" means something other than all of us. But explain this: Your side yammers on about how the courts define our rights for us. The Supreme Court has defined an individual right to own firearms. Aren't you now obliged to accept that? That's the position that you give on marriage equality and abortion--two rights that I support, by the way.

    1. "That's the position that you give on marriage equality and abortion--two rights that I support, by the way."
      They are not legal rights, yet.

    2. "Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health."

      Supports the right to an abortion with reasonable restrictions. Sounds remarkably similar to a more recent court decision that we often debate here.

    3. Greg, I'm still concerned about the complete removal of the right to own slaves. That was a right that many Southern Gentlemen enjoyed. They felt it was their birthright, sorta like you feel about gun ownership.

    4. 1. Slave ownership wasn't as common as you suggest, since most slaves lived on plantations owned by the few.

      2. No matter what anyone felt about it, owning slaves was never a right. Rights derive from our ability to make choices, but they cannot categorically remove the ability to choose of someone else, as is the case with slaves.

    5. So, site lying criminal coward
      Slavery was OK because only a few owned slaves.
      The same logic you use for innocent gun shot deaths (33,000) there are so few it's OK.
      Courts upheld the right to own a person. The courts even sanctioned putting blacks to death, if they ran away from their owners. A perfect example of what the law says is legal and a right protected by the courts for people to do. Slave owners made a choice to enslave, because they thought there was nothing wrong with it, so according to you they had a right to enslave, by their own choice. This is your example of a right that existed before the Constitution. And to further your logic, then the Constitution should protect a slave owners right to own slaves, because the government cannot stop what was a "given", or "natural" right before the Constitution was written.
      Slavery was ended when words on a piece of paper became law. Before that, blacks had no right to be free people .

    6. Anonymous says:

      "Before that, blacks had no right to be free people."

      I'm now calling Poe's law on this. That comment shows Anonymous to be a troll, only looking to disrupt rational conversation. That statement in its absurdity shows that Anonymous will say anything without believing any of it.

    7. So the lying criminal coward is saying that blacks were free people before the Emancipation Proclamation.
      Everyone swallow that one. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
      I thought you were not going to respond to anyone using the "lying" word?
      Please do, or it's just another one of your cowardly lies.

  2. Greg is correct Laci. For example, could we cite court decisions that predate Brown vs. Board of Education? Or perhaps those that predate Miranda, to justify violation of those rights?

  3. This from the site lying criminal coward who graduates the ranked dumbest students in the nation. Who thinks revenge is justice. Who thinks it's OK to beat people up. Right, a great defender of the Constitution. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

  4. Laci, I keep asking this question, which you continually ignore, with good reason, since it destroys the way you use the Miller decision to say people don’t have a right outside of militia duty. The question is: why didn’t the Court base their decision on whether or not Miller was active in a militia? They didn’t even ask that question.

  5. There is a simple reason that the Miller decision is garbage: NO ONE WAS THERE TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT!!!!!!

    How can we give any credence to a one-sided proceeding, especially when the case has a profound impact on the interpretation of civil rights?????

    I am not aware of any other case before the United States Supreme Court where there was no council for one side of the case. This was a farce.

    -- TruthBeTold

    1. Yet still it doesn't support what Laci. No where in the decision did the court say Miller had no right to own ANY gun because he wasn't enrolled in a militia.

    2. Why would the lack of defense impugn the decision of the Supremes? Aren't they capable of understanding the matter without someone explaining it to them?

    3. These gun loons don't go by legal processes. It's fine with them that, NO ONE WAS THERE TO REPRESENT THE DEFENDANT!!!!!!

    4. Mikeb, it's the concept of inadequate counsel--though in the case of Miller, the defendant was either dead or missing, and his lawyer didn't see a reason to go to court without being paid.

    5. Since Martin was dead, there was no one to contest Zim's story, so Zim went free after killing someone.
      That's the criminal motto, leave no witnesses. Dead men tell no tales.

    6. "Since Martin was dead, there was no one to contest Zim's story, so Zim went free after killing someone."

      In this country, at least so far, the burden is on the prosecution to prove guilt. The special prosecutor elected to bypass convening a grand jury to determine if there was sufficient evidence for a trial.
      There was physical evidence to back up Zimmerman's assertion that he was being assaulted to a degree that would have justified the use of deadly force.
      How about this motto,

      "is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

    7. We only have his word how he got those injuries.
      If he shot Martin without cause, giving himself scratches to invent a SUG defense, would be nothing.
      Why do you believe him, without evidence?

    8. There was more physical evidence than just his injuries Anon. There was also the forensic analysis showing that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot.
      Whether you or I believe him right now is irrevelant. He's been acquitted by a court of law. That has to be respected.

    9. The jury has said ZIM was guilty and the feel horrible that they had to aquit him because of a law they say is just justifying murder. I'll listen to the jury.