Wednesday, June 4, 2014

Three supreme court justices on the Second Amendment

That famous quote from Chief Justice Warren Burger


Let's not forget Justice William O. Douglas’s dissent in Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S 143, 150 -51 (1972).  Don't forget that Douglas was actually on the court at the time of US v. Miller (you did actually read the decision--didn't you?).



Douglas' successor on the Court, Justice John Paul Stevens:
For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”
When I joined the court in 1975, that holding was generally understood as limiting the scope of the Second Amendment to uses of arms that were related to military activities. During the years when Warren Burger was chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge or justice expressed any doubt about the limited coverage of the amendment, and I cannot recall any judge suggesting that the amendment might place any limit on state authority to do anything.
Sorry, but saying the Second Amendment is not related to the militia is not only textually incorrect, it is historically and legally incorrect.

As I said in another post, if you want to exercise your Second Amendment right, you can get all the gear paid if you join the national guard, which is the Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 militia.  That also points out the silliness of asserting that the Second Amendment right is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

You've got to pay for one (and go through the legal procedures) to be able to own a firearm if it is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”

That clause in the US Constitution is what makes a militia "constitutional", not quotes from the founding fathers.

OK, even though  I think the Heller and McDonald "decisions" are complete bullshit--I should at least quote them as well:

Scalia from Heller:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should 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.
Alito from McDonald:
It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “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.” Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 54–55). We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.
I know that Heller held that registration and background checks were A-OK.

No matter how you look at it--an unfettered right to personal arms is a fantasy.

It will be even more of a fantasy as Heller and McDonald are dissected in law journals and found to be composed of horseshit.

15 comments:

  1. The whole idea of an individual right has not been accepted by the court until recently, but the gun loons say I'm lying every time I bring that up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Utter bullshit. The "individual right" v. "collective right" issue never came before the Court in the first century-and-a-half of this country's history because IT DIDN'T EXIST until the progressives manufactured it from whole cloth.

      Even the Miller Court proceeded upon the assumption that the defendant had a right to keep and bear arms, just not one that was unsuitable for use in a militia, Douglas's dissembling notwithstanding.

      Delete
    2. Interpret it as you wish...but individuals enjoy this right...this God given right to self defense that the Bill of Rights restricts the GOVERNMENT from violating. Go ahead and try and come for them. The 100 million gun owners in the country will outnumber them. Punish those who act irresponsible or commit violent acts...but those who use them for sport, self defense, or hunting...let us be. We are no threat to you until you become a threat to us.

      Delete
    3. Right, God gave you the right thousands of years before the gun was even invented. Keep believing in those invisible fairy tale characters. Your no threat idea is proven wrong daily, but keep your delusion going.

      Delete
    4. I can only repeat what the last Anonymous said to the previous Anonymous.

      "Your no threat idea is proven wrong daily, but keep your delusion going."

      Delete
  2. Since the Dick Act makes every person that is able enough to use a weapon a member of a militia, I guess you point is moot.
    I want to know why we no long enforce the federal law that was passed when George Washing was president, that everyone on is required to own a gun? It seems that was one of the justifications in the claim that the federal government could force citizens to purchase things in the ObamaCare case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every militia member was to bring their own gun, thus the protection for militia members. The militia was mandatory, but not for every citizen (blacks, women, age restriction, etc.) Please cite the federal law that said every citizen was required to own a gun.

      Delete
    2. The entire concept of the 2A ceased to have any significance as soon as the militia ceased to be necessary for the protection of the citizenry.

      Delete
  3. hmm based on John Paul Steven's reasoning, should states be allowed to put stricter limits on abortion since the privacy laws that decided Roe v. Wade only limit what the Federal government is allowed to do? What about 1st amendment rights? The 1st amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Since this limit only applies to Congress, can individual states decide they want to establish required state religions? Remove the right to petition the state government? Remove the right to peaceably assemble?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To recognize that the 2A is meaningless and obsolete is not "to remove the right." There is nothing to remove.

      Delete
  4. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There's a conflict of interest when it comes to SCOTUS ruling on 2A, as the individual right to arms would allow for armed resistance against a future hypothetical tyrannical government, of which SCOTUS would be a part.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yawn. Settled law. Individual Right to own AND bear arms. Throw your hissy fit and have another brownie.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" -Declaration of Independence

    To correctly read the Bill of Rights (not just the 2A) you must understand the language it was written in and the type of clause:
    http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/03/06/greenslade.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. WOW, you talk about reading the Bill of Rights, but quote the Declaration of Independence, which of course is not law.
      Seems you are searching for a reason to violently overthrow the government, which makes you no better than our terrorists enemies.

      Delete