tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post9182377635869031922..comments2024-02-05T03:41:13.688+01:00Comments on Mikeb302000: Why I hate the individual right interpretation of the Second Amendment and so should you.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-75457952934914722362014-06-13T00:30:54.108+02:002014-06-13T00:30:54.108+02:00Article one is mentioned, but aren't Amendment...Article one is mentioned, but aren't Amendments just that....they amend something already in the Constitution and add something to it. Several states wanted the actual Constitution changed PRIOR to it's ratification, but Madison said that it could not be and that is what Article V was for. So Madison agreed to add the Bill of Rights during the 1st Congress if the states would ratify the Constitution. The 2nd grants no right to any one. I believe that private gun ownership by the People was a given and understood right, which is why we were able to arm ourselves with the same types of weapons that the British had. The Founders distrusted a professional and standing army, which is why there is so much debate regarding the militia. But the 2nd amendment AMENDS the militia clause in Article I and RESTRICTS the government from infringing upon the Right of the People. Are "The People" in the 2nd Amend. different from "The People" in every other part of the Constitution? I think not. We are not Europe. We are Not Britain. We are Not Australia. We are The United States, whose Founders, within the Constitution that has served us for 238 years, RESTRICTS the Federal Government from infringing upon our Right to possess arms. The US is the only country in the world with that provision. And virtually ALL of our States contain that provision within their State Constitutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-14951863707265161622011-08-18T10:33:09.431+02:002011-08-18T10:33:09.431+02:00Dog Gone's right, it's become tedious.
He...Dog Gone's right, it's become tedious.<br /><br />Here's the answer. Just think about it. Forget about the law and the various rulings and your personal interpretations.<br /><br />In 1795 the whole idea was to own a musket and other equipment in order to participate in the militia. What in the fucking hell does that have to do with us today?<br /><br />Now, doesn't that simplify it?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09806175370305006933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-9723175263246416732011-08-17T23:30:25.298+02:002011-08-17T23:30:25.298+02:00"Both you and FWM have said that the Individu..."Both you and FWM have said that the Individual Right interpretation was the common one, in particularly prior to Heller."<br /><br />I did not claim that. I stated that was what was determined in the Heller decision and that an individual right was also determined to exist in the Heller decision. Since this is a valid ruling by the Supreme Court that has not been overturned by another ruling then that is what the law of the land is as of this date.<br /><br />You could be right that every other court decided the 2nd Amendment was not an individual right. Who cares. That is not what the last Supreme Court decision decided and the latest decision is all that matters for now.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-5758333770790090962011-08-17T23:24:09.185+02:002011-08-17T23:24:09.185+02:00Jim, I know you aren't reading my responses.
...Jim, I know you aren't reading my responses.<br /><br />Both you and FWM have said that the Individual Right interpretation was the common one, in particularly prior to <i>Heller</i>.<br /><br />You have given me no solid evidence for that assertion.<br /><br />Furthermore, I have posted enough information that you should be able to figure out what I am trying to tell you.<br /><br />Keep reading until you get my point.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-24447091977200104432011-08-17T23:21:08.875+02:002011-08-17T23:21:08.875+02:00"I looked in Miller, not Heller"
Well H..."I looked in Miller, not Heller"<br /><br />Well Heller is the current decision that determines what the law says, so why would you look in Miller? Heller clarified what Miller said in the majority opinion written for the Heller case. Don't more recent decisions supercede past decisions in the US judicial system if they are dealing with the same legal issue?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-64628483899693021842011-08-17T23:17:26.826+02:002011-08-17T23:17:26.826+02:00"As I said, the Heller decision is on very sh..."As I said, the Heller decision is on very shakey ground."<br /><br />It very well may be, but it is the current law of the land.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-52780808663133961072011-08-17T23:16:58.515+02:002011-08-17T23:16:58.515+02:00I looked in Miller, not Heller
The majority decis...I looked in <i>Miller</i>, not <i>Heller</i><br /><br />The majority decision is <i>Heller</i> is an absurdity for the many reasons I have already posted here.<br /><br />I suggest that you reread them since I will not bother continuing with this.<br /><br />You have enough information from me to try to get an idea of the point I am making.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-15423810867516771662011-08-17T23:15:34.607+02:002011-08-17T23:15:34.607+02:00There is clearly a disconnect here, where the atte...There is clearly a disconnect here, where the attempt to make a cogent explanation by Laci is not being understood. This is leaving us with an endless cycle of tedium, of repetitious asked and answered.<br /><br />Until we can dicover some way to bridge that disconnect, there is no point to continuing the discussion, on either side.dog gonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00151618317070878675noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25032899808663913522011-08-17T23:15:29.517+02:002011-08-17T23:15:29.517+02:00"Please state why the is the longest-serving ..."Please state why the is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days who happened to be a member of the Miller Court would not have a better understanding of US v. Miller than you do? "<br /><br />I do not claim a better understanding of US. vs Miller than Douglass. I am only saying what the current Supreme Court decideded. And in the end that is all that matters.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-78340326158266927522011-08-17T23:13:11.403+02:002011-08-17T23:13:11.403+02:00Jim, your comments from Heller deonstrate that you...Jim, your comments from Heller deonstrate that you do not understand either that decision or Miller.<br /><br />I gave you the opinion of Justice Douglas who was a member of the Miller Court who directly contradicts the Majority's reading of Miller.<br /><br />Additionally, I have given you quotes from Miller which contradict the Majority's reading of that decisions.<br /><br />Namely:<br /><i>With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces (<b>The Article I, Section 8, clause 15 & 16 Militias</b>), the declaration and guarantee (<b>both parts</b>) of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. </i><br /><br />The court misinterprets:<br /><i>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. <b>Aymette v. State,</b> 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.</i><br /><br />The contention that contention that Miller stands for the proposition that Congress may regulate only those classes of weapons which have no relationship to the militia i absurd. The Supreme Court "did not intend to formulate a general rule in Miller, but merely dealt with the facts of that case." Warin, 530 F.2d at 106 (citing Cases, 131 F.2d at 922). Given the destructive capabilities of modern weaponry, it is inconceivable and irrational to suggest that Congress may only regulate weapons which have no possible relationship to the common defense today "such as a flintlock musket or a matchlock harquebus."<br /><br />I would also add that <i>Miller</i> uses the term Judicial Notice which is a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it cannot be refuted. This is done upon the request of the party seeking to have the fact at issue determined by the court. Matters admitted under judicial notice are accepted without being formally introduced by a witness or other rule of evidence, and even if one party wishes to lead evidence to the contrary.<br /><br />Judicial notice is frequently used for the simplest, most obvious common sense facts, such as which day of the week corresponded to a particular calendar date.<br /><br />The fact that McReynolds states that "it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment" demonstrates that the firearm was not the issue.<br /><br />Had it have been, then it would have been entered into evidence that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun#Police_and_military_use" rel="nofollow">sawed off shotguns were used for the common defence</a>.<br /><br />See <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/in-absence-of-any-evidence-tending-to.html" rel="nofollow">This for an explanation of <i>Aymette</i></a><br /><br />As I said, the Heller decision is on very shakey ground.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-74781620103972088902011-08-17T23:11:11.196+02:002011-08-17T23:11:11.196+02:00"As it was a settled Law prior to Heller that..."As it was a settled Law prior to Heller that:"<br /><br />I agree that prior to Heller that was settled law... then Heller changed it.<br /><br />"Additionally, I would ask that you not lecture me on legal matters."<br /><br />I am not lecturing you on legal matters, I was quoting from the text of the majority decision in Heller. I find it hard to believe that you scanned the text and could not find the references by the majority decision that referred to the individual right... are you sure you looked in the majority decision and not the minority?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-81025319732151879572011-08-17T22:54:24.002+02:002011-08-17T22:54:24.002+02:00I trust you are familiar with US v. Miller, 307 U....I trust you are familiar with <i>US v. Miller</i>, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).<br /><br />At the end of the decision it says:<br /><br /> <i> MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS took no part in the consideration or decision of this cause.</i><br /><br />That refers to Justice WIlliam O. Douglas who had just joined the court at the time the decision had argued. In a later case, <i>Adams v. Williams,</i> 407 U.S 143(1972) Justice Douglas said at 150 -51:<br /><br /> <i> 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."<br /><br /> 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.<br /><br /> 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."<br /><br /> <b> 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 [p151] secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.</b><br /><br /> Id. at 178-179.<br /><br /> 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><br /><br />Please state why the is the longest-serving justice in the history of the Supreme Court With a term lasting 36 years and 209 days who happened to be a member of the Miller Court would not have a better understanding of US v. Miller than you do? <br /><br />Additionally, I would ask that you not lecture me on legal matters.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-43054461175185594712011-08-17T22:54:18.552+02:002011-08-17T22:54:18.552+02:00You can say what you want.
As it was a settled La...You can say what you want.<br /><br />As it was a settled Law prior to Heller that:<br /><br /><i>We agree with numerous other courts that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948, 96 S.Ct. 3168, 49 L.Ed.2d 1185 (1976); accord Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir.1971); United States v. Kozerski, 518 F.Supp. 1082, 1090 (D.N.H.1981), aff'd mem., 740 F.2d 952 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 842, 105 S.Ct. 147, 83 L.Ed.2d 86 (1984); Annot. 37 A.L.R.Fed. 696, 706 (1978) (citing cases). That is to say, it protects a state's right to raise and regulate a militia by prohibiting Congress from enacting legislation that will interfere with that right. The second amendment says nothing that would prohibit a state (or the legislature for the District of Columbia) from restricting the use or possession of weapons in derogation of the government's own right to enroll a body of militiamen "bearing arms supplied by themselves" as in bygone days. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). In sum, "[t]he right to keep and bear arms is not a right conferred upon the people by the federal constitution. Whatever rights the people may have depend upon local legislation...." Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 921 (1st Cir.1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770, 63 S.Ct. 1431, 87 L.Ed. 1718 (1943).</i> <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/historic-document-fun.html" rel="nofollow">Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987)</a>.<br /><br />End part 1Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-52699588570146578512011-08-17T22:52:35.189+02:002011-08-17T22:52:35.189+02:00Quotes from the majority opinion in Heller:
"...Quotes from the majority opinion in Heller:<br /><br />"We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."<br /><br />"Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment . We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876) , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed "<br /><br />"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."<br /><br />"We reach the question, then: Does the preface fit with an operative clause that creates an individual right to keep and bear arms? It fits perfectly, once one knows the history that the founding generation knew and that we have described above. That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents. This is what had occurred in England that prompted codification of the right to have arms in the English Bill of Rights."<br /><br />Regarding the Miller decision, Heller says this:<br /><br />"And what is, according to Justice Stevens, the holding of Miller that demands such obeisance? That the Second Amendment “protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons.” Post, at 2.<br /><br /> Nothing so clearly demonstrates the weakness of Justice Stevens’ case. Miller did not hold that and cannot possibly be read to have held that. The judgment in the case upheld against a Second Amendment challenge two men’s federal convictions for transporting an unregistered short-barreled shotgun in interstate commerce, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 48 Stat. 1236. It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for … military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [short-barreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,” the Court continued, “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.” Ibid. Beyond that, the opinion provided no explanation of the content of the right.<br /><br /> This holding is not only consistent with, but positively suggests, that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms (though only arms that “have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”). Had the Court believed that the Second Amendment protects only those serving in the militia, it would have been odd to examine the character of the weapon rather than simply note that the two crooks were not militiamen."Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-84293378053255843192011-08-17T22:39:58.481+02:002011-08-17T22:39:58.481+02:00I said it is settled law until the next Supreme Co...I said it is settled law until the next Supreme Court decision says otherwise. The only law that matters is what the law says now. For instance, you can't claim that Slavery is legal now because it was once legal in America. The law changed and the courts ruled and now we stand where we stand.<br /><br />However, if the law was to be re-written to authorize slavery, then that would be the law until a court ruled otherwise (not that this would ever happen). The same can be said for abortion or any other controversial subject. The law is the law until someone with the authority changes it - be it Congress writing new laws or the Courts deciding laws are constitutional or not.<br /><br />The vote on any given decision does not have any bearing on the legality of that decision be it 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4 it is still the judgement of the court and it is binding.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-58272318986000948082011-08-17T22:38:28.303+02:002011-08-17T22:38:28.303+02:00Jim, I just did a text search of the Miller decisi...Jim, I just did a text search of <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html" rel="nofollow"><i>the Miller decision</i></a>.<br /><br />No where do I see that the Court says that the right is an individual one.<br /><br />Have you actually <i>read</i> the <i>Miller</i> Decision?<br /><br />BTW, <i>Miller</i> references <i>Aymette v. State</i>, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158 which says:<br /><br /><i>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 <b>has a military sense, and no other</b>; 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. <b>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.</b> 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.</i><br /><br />Comments?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-84076028990410375502011-08-17T22:10:15.576+02:002011-08-17T22:10:15.576+02:00Reread previous comments.
Although, I do have a q...Reread previous comments.<br /><br />Although, I do have a question for you Jim--How can you say that a 5-4 split decision is settled law?<br /><br />Especially when the previous decision was unanimous?<br /><br />You are ignoring quite a bit of legal details here.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-47541237753794919712011-08-17T22:06:37.548+02:002011-08-17T22:06:37.548+02:00"Miller v. US --unanimous court holding the C..."Miller v. US --unanimous court holding the Civic Right interpretation of the Second Amendment."<br /><br />Not according to Heller. According to Heller, the interpretation had never been defined by the Supreme Court and it was the majority's opinion that the 2nd Amendment guaranteed an individual right. Yes they did say it could be regulated, but they specifically state that it is an individual right. Therefore as far as current law goes in the U.S. the 2nd Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right.<br /><br />There is no need to cite previous court decisions as the most recent decision is what matters. Come back when you have a decision by the Supreme Court after the Heller decision that says otherwise.Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-73915924293897189782011-08-17T20:20:18.940+02:002011-08-17T20:20:18.940+02:00Once again, In case you missed it-–here is the Hel...Once again, In case you missed it-–here is the Heller-McDonald language relating to regulation of firearms:<br /><br /> <i>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, <b>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.</b> 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). <b>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.</b></i> Heller at 54-5<br /><br />Which has as a footnote (26):<br /><br /> <i>We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.</i><br /><br />Better yet:<br /><br /> <i>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.</i> Heller at 64<br /><br />From McDonald:<br /><br /> <i>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> McDonald at 39-40<br /><br />The only thing off the table is anything that purports to be a ban. Which leads to my question: had Chicago theoretically allowed for registrations (as does New York City) since that is not an “absolute prohibition”– would the law have passed constitutional muster? After all, NYC’s law has been around for 99 years: doesn’t that count as a longstanding regulatory measure?<br /><br />As I said, the Civic Right interpretation is the only one that makes sense in the long run.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-25193468060666329142011-08-17T20:14:47.059+02:002011-08-17T20:14:47.059+02:00ASKED AND ANSWERED
Jim, you are failing to unders...<b>ASKED AND ANSWERED</b><br /><br />Jim, you are failing to understand, since I am being quite clear. <br /><br />Please think over my response and better rephase the question rather than repeat since since I have properly answered you.<br /><br />Miller v. US --unanimous court holding the Civic Right interpretation of the Second Amendment.<br /><br />Heller-McDonald 5 Justices change the law to allow for registered firearms to be kept in the home and 4 follow the Civic Right interpretation.<br /><br />This unsettles the law with both viewpoints being legally valid.<br /><br />Exact holding from Heller:<br /><i>hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment , as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to <b>register his handgun</b> and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.</i><br /><br />I believe McDonald was also allowed to register a handgun.<br /><br />The Heller-McDonald holdings as they stand are extremely limited the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens” being able to keep fireams in the home.<br /><br />I do not see the "Second Amendment" protections being broadened.<br /><br />As I have said, the position expoused by Heller-McDonald is untenable and ripe for attack.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-62748761570155425412011-08-17T20:03:13.874+02:002011-08-17T20:03:13.874+02:00Laci - can you simply not type what the current la...Laci - can you simply not type what the current law of the United States says in regard to the 2nd Amendment? I understand that you like previous interpretations of past courts, but I am more concerned with the truth of the here and now. Come on, you can do it... According to current Supreme Court decisions, what is the current lawful interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in regards to it being an individual right?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-86850797168398748822011-08-17T19:36:54.181+02:002011-08-17T19:36:54.181+02:00Asked and answered.
But, as simply as possible, H...Asked and answered.<br /><br />But, as simply as possible, Heller-McDonald took settled law and upset it.<br /><br />In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law. The Miller Court said in upholding a conviction under that Act, the Supreme Court held that, “[i]n 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.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. <br /><br />The view of the Amendment That the Supreme Court took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.<br /><br /> Since the Miller decision, hundreds of judges have relied on the view of the Amendment the Supreme court expounded upon. The Court affirmed it in again 1980 in <i>Lewis v. United States</i>, 445 U. S. 55 , n. 8 (1980). No new evidence has surfaced since 1980 supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. <br /><br />Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage for Congress to regulate firearms, rather than limit their ability to do so.<br /><br />Heller-McDonald is ripe for attack and does not withstand legal and historic scrutiny.<br /><br />Verstaste?Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-68612955147382435192011-08-17T18:50:18.692+02:002011-08-17T18:50:18.692+02:00Laci - that did not really answer my question on w...Laci - that did not really answer my question on what the current US Law states about the 2nd Amendment. Can you clarify what your legal opinion is of the current status of the 2nd Amendment?Jimnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-69663150246677905382011-08-17T18:26:30.275+02:002011-08-17T18:26:30.275+02:00Jim, did you read the Sandidge v. United States, 5...Jim, did you read the <a href="http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/historic-document-fun.html" rel="nofollow">Sandidge v. United States, 520 A.2d 1057 (D.C. 1987)</a> decision that I posted?<br /><br />There is very good legal reason for a court to follow the Civic Right interpretation and attack the Heller-McDonald decisions.<br /><br />If you have read and understood my posts, you would know a good portion of them.<br /><br />The <i>United States v. Miller</i>, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939), followed the Civic right interpretation.<br /><br />Likewise, Justice Stevens's <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html" rel="nofollow">dissent in Heller</a>, which was joined by four other justices, followed the Civic right interpretation.<br /><br />All that is needed is for a judge, or two, or three, or more, to start saying Justice Stevens was correct and the Majority should not have ignored <i>US v. Miller</i> for it to be overturned.<br /><br />The folks who run <a href="http://alecwatch.org/" rel="nofollow">The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)</a> would be very happy for you single issue voters to use this as a litmus test for who you decide to support in coming elections.<br /><br />BTW, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Rifle_Association" rel="nofollow">the NRA is a major operator in ALEC</a>.<br /><br />Think about that.Laci The Doghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07138644349857941157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6314891743204395487.post-86790981597916942232011-08-17T18:12:38.074+02:002011-08-17T18:12:38.074+02:00Laci - in your legal opinion, does the current law...Laci - in your legal opinion, does the current law of the United States hold that the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right or a collective civic right?Jimnoreply@blogger.com