We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.Scalia, DC v. Heller.
It's also not your place to reinterpret the US Constitution and trash centuries of legal precedent. Remember, Judicial review is a custom, not an actual Constitutionally created power. And the same source for Judicial Review says that "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 [1803])
Keep stomping your little hooves in puerile, impotent indignation, Laci--I so enjoy it.
ReplyDeleteIt didn't sound like "puerile, impotent indignation" to me. That's just you doing again what you do best, or at least much better than Colion Noir does.
Delete"where well-trained police forces provide personal security" yeah for him and the rest of the gov officials that should not be getting it..The rest of us understand that we are on our own to defend ourselves against any threats and that the "well trained police" usually show up after the fact. Hence why the natural right of self defense can not and will not be usurped by any court gov or the lunatic fringe..
ReplyDeleteMBIAC.....
Ha, look who's calling someone else the lunatic fringe.
DeleteGood Mike you understood i was speaking of you and your ilk..considering your side in this is much smaller in numbers making you the fringe. Whether that fact can penetrate through your prozac soaked mind is another question. And before you start spewing how most Americans think as you do let me call bullshit because most Americans would not be ok with the confiscation of 50% of gun owners firearms as you fantasize about .
DeleteMBIAC....
You're wrong about that. Gun control people agree with me, as do many gun owners.
DeleteAnd, you badly mischaracterized what I fantasize about. Requiring people to be better qualified to own guns and disarming those who prove themselves incapable of responsible and safe handling of guns is not the same as "the confiscation of 50% of gun owners firearms."
Contradict yourself much Mike? Disarm, confiscate, not much difference the way I see it.
DeleteYou're embarrassing yourself, Anon. Those who should be disarmed (have their guns confiscated) was only half of what I said. The first half, and arguably the most important, is "to be better qualified to own guns." That's not disarming or confiscation, that's prevention.
DeleteThe first half, and arguably the most important, is "to be better qualified to own guns." That's not disarming or confiscation, that's prevention.
DeleteSo those who are not "qualified" to own guns in your view, but already own them, would be permitted to keep them?
Well, I never envisioned door to door confiscations. Those who already have guns and who are not qualified under some future improvement in the gun laws, would be invited to surrender those weapons. The rest would eventually be disarmed as they violate the one-strike-you're-out policy. Others would get old and die, many long before their time because of their extreme overweight.
DeleteThe "not qualified" part of my comment rightly refers to newcomers who fail to meet the requirements.
Those who already have guns and who are not qualified under some future [tyrannical atrocity], would be invited to surrender those weapons.
DeleteGotta love "invited to surrender." Now that's funny. Come to think of it, I have an "invitation" for you, Mikeb, but I don't suppose you'd publish my comment if I got any more specific.
"Both Heller and McDonald do say that “the need
ReplyDeletefor defense of self, family, and property is most acute”
in the home, id. at 3036 (emphasis added); 554 U.S. at
628, but that doesn’t mean it is not acute outside the home.
Heller repeatedly invokes a broader Second
Amendment right than the right to have a gun in
one’s home, as when it says that the amendment
“guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” 554 U.S. at 592.
Confrontations are not limited to the home."
"The Second Amendment states in its entirety that “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” (emphasis added).
The right to “bear” as distinct from the right to “keep”
arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of “bearing”
arms within one’s home would at all times have been
an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies
a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
And one doesn’t have to be a historian to realize that
a right to keep and bear arms for personal self-defense
in the eighteenth century could not rationally
have been limited to the home."
Madigan vs. Moore
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/12-1269/12-1269-2012-12-11.pdf
The conditions Scalia mentioned as not being sufficient to consider the 2A "outmoded," I find to be more than sufficient. And given that these recent pro-gun decisions were passed with the slimmest possible margins of 1 single Justice's vote, I'd say all will be reversed when the balance on the Court changes.
DeleteThe conditions Scalia mentioned as not being sufficient to consider the 2A "outmoded," I find to be more than sufficient.
DeleteScalia didn't really address the question of whether or not the Second Amendment is "outmoded." What he said that it isn't the Supreme Court's place to just throw parts of the Constitution away when those parts are thought to have become obsolete. There's a process for changing the Constitution, and simply ignoring the parts one no longer likes ain't it.
Of course, the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right, with or without enshrinement in the Constitution or any other document, is yet another problem for those who want that right violated.
Kurt, in his typically honest way: "Scalia didn't really address the question of whether or not the Second Amendment is "outmoded." "
DeleteScalia: "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation,..."
Mikeb, do try to keep up, please.
DeleteYes, Scalia stated that some believe the Second Amendment is outmoded. What he did not really address is the question of whether or not there is merit to that belief. And the excellent reason for not doing so is that, as I said, that's not the Supreme Court's job.
Exactly, "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation,..."
DeleteHe said "some think" Mike, like you. He did not say it was his opinion. And since the founders abhorred the thought of a "standing army" in time of peace, the line included "shall not be tolerated" was clear on the subject.
The problem is that you Mike, and your company keep confusing or try to blur the lines between military and militia. Two separate things that are clearly defined in the constitution. The military is not addressed in the bill of rights, individual rights are. The government has the military, the individuals rights to keep and bear arms make up the militia. Once you join the governments military a lot of your individual rights are put on hold until you complete your service to the military.
The military is made up from individuals who were compelled into service by the draft, or voluntary service to the government today providing themselves only, nothing else. The draft how ever has not gone away as young people still have to register for it at certain ages.
The individuals who wish to volunteer themselves and their arms, ammunition and equipment make up members of a militia. The government cannot compel militia members to take up arms overseas much less out of their state. In as much as the government cannot be compel the military to take up arms in the states against its own citizens, legally.
So no, the right of the 2A is not outmoded, it is, however, the education of it is severely lacking on the subject. But there is light being shed on the subject, more each day, and the people who care about those rights are now, more and more, beginning to exercising those rights again.
Finish the quote and you see that Scalia did not address whether it is outmoded:" Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct."
DeleteHe clearly states that it is not for the Court to decide.
I see, he didn't REALLY address it. Got it.
DeleteMikeb, I'm having trouble figuring out how even you can have trouble understanding this. To state that "some think" something, and then not weigh in on whether or not those thinking it are correct, is to not address that question.
DeleteGuns were not even invented til 10,000 years after humans first walked the Earth. To say a gun is a fundamental human right is laughable.
ReplyDeleteAnd by that logic, it is also laughable to suggest a fundamental human right to freedom of the press, freedom from bondage, freedom to chose medical procedures, freedom of religion, etc.
DeleteBasically the only freedom your suggestion would leave is...what? Maybe the freedom to eat bugs, fruit, and to run around naked?
That is a ridiculous statement. Before guns, humans defended themselves with what ever means that were at hand. As time went by those means advanced. By the time the Bill of Rights were written, the gun was already in use and happened to the best means of defense at the time. Still more time has past and those means still advance. So it's not so much the gun as it is the government can not infringe on ANY means of the individuals of rights to defend themselves or others.
DeleteIf no guns ever existed, the word "arms" would still be appropriate as you could still be armed with a stick or a rock if that was all we had. The right born with and enumerated in the Bill of Rights is not so much to do with the gun itself, rather than the means (the tools) to stay free from harm from those that would inflict it, shall not be infringed.
I think the first Anonymous made a wonderful point. It highlights the ridiculous nature of all gun-rights supporters who use the words "natural human." Of course this pushes their buttons so the blow back will be fun to watch.
DeleteI see without surprise, Mikeb, that you enthusiastically agree with the first Anon. I see also, and also without surprise, that you simply avoid addressing the problems with his argument, as very capably pointed out by the second and third Anons.
DeleteNothing new there.
Taking a crap is more natural than owing a gun, but the founders did not write in to the Constitution such natural rights like eating, drinking water, pissing, or any other natural process for sustaining life. You are screaming about the right to own an inanimate object, not self defense, which can be done without a gun. You earn the title gun loon when you equate gun rights to human rights.
DeleteIf you have to defend yourself from an aggressor that has in his possession one of those little inanimate objects, your likelihood of successfully defending yourself diminishes greatly without equal means to fight back. The best way to have the means to defend yourself from such an aggressor is to be in possession of one of those little inanimate objects as well.
DeleteThis makes sense since you cant run 900 to 1500 foot per second. You will never get close enough to him to swing a bat at him, pull a knife, or throw a rock as fast as he can pull the trigger. Your likely not going to be able to take cover fast enough (see run).
I am not saying that you will be successful with one of those little inanimate objects as likely YOU anon, will be caught off guard and he will have the jump on you. But having a fighting chance is better than no chance at all.
So defending yourself is JUST AS NATURAL as taking a crap. A this time the best armament to have IS one of those little inanimate objects to do so. In a hundred years or so it might be laser gun or some future type of armament. In the past it was those really long and sharp inanimate objects. Hell, way before that it was a friggin ROCK!
So don't piss on everyone's leg and call it rain. Yes people have defended themselves successfully without the latest inanimate object, but not many as compared to those that had that little inanimate object.
So you earn the title of ignoramus of the year. Or is your purpose to simply disarm everyone and leave them defenseless against an aggressor that will not be disarmed. Your constant belittling of rights to any inanimate object for the purpose of self defense or defense of others which IS a protected civil right by the way, is dumbfounding and astounding.
The rights to those arms IS EQUAL to human rights. It has been even before those right were enumerated and protected.
It figures you are one of those idiots who thinks a gun is natural. One of those "original intent" guys who must also believe blacks should still be slaves and women should have no rights, because the Constitution doesn't enumerate their rights. So obviously blacks and women are not natural, because we had to expressly write their rights into the law. Aren't you the same idiot who said the 1st amendment guaranteed us a rithgt to a PC? Now on with your delusions.
DeleteNo, not the same anon. And where is it in the Bill of Rights does it exclude the rights of blacks and women you racist, sexist idiot? You are truly the finest example of a moron. Thank you for proving that fact to everyone.
DeleteYou can't argue with facts so you let your idiocy show instead.
Anti-gun anonymous, there are two or three pro gun anonomi arguing against you at various times--can tell by our different voices in some comments.
DeleteThe PC comment you're bringing up came, I think, from a conversation between Mikeb and Greg Camp, and the idea was that you have a right to use your money to purchase what you want as a general principle, not that the first amendment guaranteed you a PC. However, that comment, is neither here nor there.
As for the rest of your puerile little screed about "original intent", nothing about originalism, as a legal interpretive theory, would demand black slavery or take women's and blacks' rights away. To suggest otherwise is to willfully misrepresent the theory.
Of course, you have no qualms about willful misrepresentation, obviously, since you claim that our position would deem women and blacks to be "unnatural" and to have no rights until they are recorded in law.
This is actually closer to the position taken by Laci when he claims that no rights exist except those which are defined in civil law. Unless he makes some exception for some human rights, his position would mean that women and blacks didn't have rights until they had them granted by law.
Our position is that people have rights regardless, so even while enslaved, the blacks had rights--those rights were just being violated by their owners, the slavers who kidnapped them, and by the governing system that allowed this kidnapping and chattle slavery.
Same with the right to self defense, and the implied right to the tools of such.
Thanks GC for proving my point. Now back to your dictionary to learn more insulting words.
Delete