Tuesday, December 13, 2011

REPOST (for Greg): Legal Construction and the Second Amendment

Since he thinks he knows the rule of the game:

In proper legal theory, one has to use the text of a law to determine its meaning and the rules of legal construction and interpretation to divine the meaning. We shall use this as our text for the Second Amendment:

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.

I picked this version because I don't want tiny minds making stupid comments about punctuation even though the four comma version might be better for the point I'm trying to make here. But we will use this version. Given the intellect of some people answering this, it is probably better to use smaller numbers (yes, and what comes after two????). After all, you give them 2+2 and they come up with 5.

Anyway, We are not going to discuss whether this is an individual, collective or civic right. We are going to analyse the sentence that is the Second Amendment. We will also look at it in light of what the Constitution says.

Why is there a "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" that "shall not be infringed" using the words above? What is the scope of this right?

If your answer is self-defence, then you are wrong since the phrase self-defence is not plainly written in the text. It is a common legal principle that one cannot infer something when it is not plainly written in the text. It is a principle of statutory interpretation that The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

Again, Fighting government tyranny is not mentioned in the Second Amendment. Additionally, Fighting government tyranny makes no sense in light of Article III, Section iii. That means the insurrection theory is truly not supported by any serious constitutional scholarship. The concept of fighting government tyranny makes even less sense when you consider that Samuel Adams said, "Rebellion against a king may be pardoned, or lightly punished, but the man who dares to rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death."

That means we must find our meaning in the text, not outside of it. We can also look for further guidance in the Constitution since the Second Amendment must be read within the framework of the constitution. However, a search of the Constitutional text will find that one constitutional purpose is to "provide for the common defence" and you don't have to read to far into the Constitution to find that stated.

Blackstone stated that, although the words of an enacting clause were 'generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,' yet if its words, after due analysis, were 'still dubious' or 'ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate,' one might look to the context, which included 'the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament.' (1 Blackstone at 59-60).

Someone said that the proeme could be read as starting with Because. Which means a better way of reading this is Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

So, using the text above and the Constitution, The right to "Keep and bear arms" has something to do with "a well regulated militia" since that is mentioned in the text of the Second Amendment and is a purpose tied to "providing for the common defence" which is a purpose stated in the Constitution. It has nothing to do with self-defence since nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment or the Constitution is the phrase "self-defence" present or even hinted at.

We will now turn to the universally accepted authority for legal interpretation at the time of the Constitution's adoption, William Blackstone:

The citation from Blackstone regarding the "proeme, or preamble" is part of a larger section that consists of "observations concerning the interpretation of laws." 1 Blackstone at *58. One of those "observations" was: "BUT, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it." 1 Blackstone at *61.

Blackstone refers to this "when the reason ceases, the law ought to cease" principle several times in the Commentaries, which would seem to indicate that he considered it a fairly important interpretive principle. 2 Blackstone at *390-91 (discussing property interests in tame and domestic animals and noting "But here the reasons of the general rule cease, and 'cessante ratione cessat et ipsa lex' [The reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases]"), 3 Blackstone at *219 (discussing the law of nuisance, and noting "But, where the reason ceases, the law also ceases with it : therefore it is no nuisance to erect a mill so near mine, as to draw away the custom, unless the miller also intercepts the water."), 4 Blackstone at *3 (noting that some aspects of Britain's criminal law "seem to want revision and amendment" and explaining that "These have chiefly arisen from too scrupulous an adherence to some rules of the antient common law, when the resons have ceased upon which those rules were founded . . . "), 4 Blackstone at *81 (discussing the law of treason, and noting that the "plain intention of this law is to guard the blood royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the crown might be rendered dubious: and therefore, when this reason ceases, the law ceases with it . . ."), 4 Blackstone at *330 (discussing the plea of a former attainder, and noting "But to this general rule however, as to all others, there are some exceptions; wherein, cessante ratione, cessat et ipsa lex.").

Some of these seem to refer to common-law decision making, but he also applies this principle to statutes.

Which means that if the "cause/reason" for the Second Amendment was the "well-regulated militia", then it could be argued that when that reason ceased, the law ought likewise to cease with it. Thus, those who say that the militia portion is unimportant have made it clear that the reason is no longer valid, therefore, the Second Amendment is without effect and is now void.

I know I will have lost the simpler minded readers with the citations from Blackstone, but it is rather simple:

The right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia since no other purpose is mentioned in the text. Additionally, if we look in the Constitution, we find that one of its stated purposes is to "provide for the common defence". So, it would seem far more likely that the right is in some way tied to a "well regulated militia" than some other purpose.

Of course, with my federalism and stare decisis posts, we can see that the supporters of an individual right don't mind playing fast and loose with the law. The scary bit is that there has become a cottage industry of "scholars" who have been foisting this theory on an unquestioning public. No one has asked "how can self-defence be covered when it is not specifically mentioned? Isn't it a tenet of statutory interpretation that the express mention of one thing excludes all others?"

Also, you don't need to go beyond the text of the Constitution to find mention of the militia and Congress' power to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia". Again, nothing mentioned in the US Constitution regarding personal defence. However, the language, which is within the Constitution might provide a clue as to the reason for "the right of the People to keep and bear arms". That purpose is to provide that congress continues its obligation to arm the militia according to Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

One other point that shoots down the individual right interpretation is that there is quite a bit of commentary surrounding the adoption of the Constitution which point to concerns based upon article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16, not private purposes. The fact that private purposes were mentioned in various proposals only adds weight to the fact that they were not included in the text of the Second Amendment.

The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute.

This is not English literature, this is law and subject to the rules of legal construction, not grammar.

The meaning of the language of the statute must be determined in light of its objectives, purposes, and practical effect as a whole. If a statute is so ambiguous that a judge cannot make a reasonable construction of its disputed provisions, and a reasonable person could not determine from reading it what the law orders or prohibits, it is void for vagueness because it violates the guarantee of Due Process of Law.

That means if you find the language to be unclear, then the law is void for vagueness.

So, if the reason for the Second Amendment is not:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Then the law is no longer valid.

If this is all unclear, then it is void for vagueness.

30 comments:

  1. You just told us that according to Blackstone, we look at the proeme when we don't understand the enacting clause. I don't see anything confusing in "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's clear to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. GCI don't see anything confusing in "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's clear to me.

    No it is not clear to you, just as so many other fictions among the pro-gunners are myth not fact.

    Your ignorance of the most simple phrases has been displayed here repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, already had addressed the issue of the militias.
    Regarding the Second Amendment, the founders were very clear when framing the entire document, when referring to the state, they used the word 'state'; when referring to individual rights, they used the word 'people.'
    Even if there were no Second Amendment, the Ninth Amendment would clearly have given the individual the right to bear arms.
    Again, the Ninth speaks of the 'people' not the state.

    "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effective way to enslave them."

    - George Mason

    "... No free man shall be debarred the use of arms within his ouwn land."

    - Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, 1776

    "Americans [have] the right and advantage of being armed - unlike citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

    - James Madison

    "... that the [federal] Constitution be never construed to prevent the people who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

    - Samuel Adams

    And never, never, never, forget:

    "This country was founded by religious nuts with guns."

    – P.J. O'Rourke

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use this same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

    – Alan Dershowitz, in The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason, 82 Mich L. Rev., 204 (Dan Gifford), 1995

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.saf.org/EMERSONacadsecd.htm
    Modern scholarship has established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some sort of "collective" or "state" right to maintain formal military organizations. Indeed, the arguments and evidence that support this conclusion are so overwhelming that commentators who wish to dispute it avoid confronting those arguments and evidence. Instead, they rely on misleading and irrelevant historical data, inapposite judicial opinions, and sometimes on outright sophistries. The inexorable power of the arguments in favor of the individual-right interpretation has persuaded scholars from all points on the political spectrum, including those who embrace a variety of interpretive theories. (1) Even Professor Laurence Tribe, a long-time proponent of the states' right theory, has now unequivocally acknowledged that the Second Amendment protects the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms:

    [The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action. (2)

    Similarly, distinguished legal historian Leonard W. Levy has concluded that there is simply no doubt about the personal nature of the rights protected by the Second Amendment: "Believing that the amendment does not authorize an individual's right to keep and bear arms is wrong.The right to bear arms is an individual right." (3)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous--can you say anything original?

    You repeat the same tired bullshit, which demonstrates that you have not actually read the source material, but are just repeating what you have been told.

    If Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 gives congress, and only the US congress, the power to arm the militia--couldn't they also neglect to arm the militia?

    Your quotes really don't mean too much.

    Not to mention, you do the typical trick of those who propose the "Individual Right"--you use only selective sections of the quotes.

    Case in point,the George Mason quote. It comes from Elliot's Debates, Vol. 3, Page 380 If you were to use more of the same quote, you find that it supports my position:

    An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man,* who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] This was a most iniquitous project. Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with the military profession.

    Thomas Jefferson was not involved in the Constitutional Debate as he was the minister to France (now know as the US Ambassador) from 1785 to 1789. The quote is also unattributed.

    The Samuel Adams quote is of course unattributed as well, but it supports my assertion.

    The problem, anonymous, is that the civic right interpretation is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination. You will find that many conservative legal theorists take my side, E.g., judges Richard A. Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson III. Judge Robert Bork once attacked this position.

    I would also point you to this blog entry
    http://respondeat.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/d-c-v-heller-roe-v-wade-and-the-fallacy-of-scalias-originalism/

    Personally, I don't find the civic right interpretation belongs to any one side, which can also be said about the individual right interpretation as well. So, your comment about liberals distorting the Second Amendment is more ignorant bullshit from you anonymous.

    I find that the people who advocate the civic right interpretation are usually those with legal and historic knowledge of the topic who have actually researched the topic.

    People who advocate the "individual right" interpretation are one of two types: those who are intellectually dishonest and advocating an unsupported position.

    Or those who are ignorant and choose to livve in ignorance.

    Anonymous, you are of the last category.

    As is Greg.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous, as I said, you have this habit of repeating the same tired bullshit--repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

    You will have to demonstrate that you have actually read and understand the material for me to take an interest in your comments beyond what I have already said.

    You are only being a parrot.

    Sheep follow.

    Wolves think for themselves.

    I only hear you bleating, anonymous.

    Show me you know what you are talking about,and maybe I'll change my opinion.

    I'm not holding my breath since I have actually read this material--and you have not.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, I'll tell you what, both Alan Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe say that there is an individual right to bear arms. Why don't you confront those two, liberal, modern legal giants with your silliness.
    They probably wouldn't say it, but it is a certainty they would think you are, in your words, a fuckwit.
    Please, email them with your nonsense and post their responses.

    ReplyDelete
  9. But Anonymous, what you fail to realize is that only Laci the Dog knows anything about the law. Justices of the Supreme Court and a professor at Harvard University can only appear to know something about the law if they agree with Laci. If you don't believe it, he'll repeat it for you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Laci
    Are you even an American? If not, your opinion doesn't mean shit .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, anonymous, you are shown up for not knowing what you are talking about and you have to use the old ad hominem.

    I was born in Detroit, MI, USA--AKA Motown.

    If you know your US constitution, then you know your answer.

    But, even if I were not a citizen and had never spent a day in the US, if my opinion is based on facts--it would be worth far more than yours whis ic based upon fairy tales.

    Thanks for admitting that I am correct by your lack of an intelligent response, anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Of course, no response anonymous makes is intelligent.

    Same goes for you, Greg.

    Do you give passing grades to students who write the type of crap you do?

    Why do you write and argue like an idiot, greg?

    Is it because you are an idiot?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous, you can tell me all the bullshit and balther you want--you have no real knowledge of this topic--as I have demonstrated.

    I don't need to write Dershowitz and Tribe, they are well aware of this legal theory.

    If they choose to promote bullshit, that is their business.

    Unlike, sheep like anonymous and Greg, I have come to my opinion based upon my own research and knowledge.

    Unless you can provide a FACTUAL basis which would cause me to change my opinion, you can post all the nonsense that you like.

    And that is what you ar e posting.

    Of course, Greg has to denigrate my legal knowledge since he has none, yet he wishes to give his opinions on topics he has no knowledge.

    Greg is a fool.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm going to add that it's pretty oobvious that you two didn't read the actual Mason quote, or the reference I gave to the Constitutional debates.

    That further backs up my position that the issue was militia v. standing army.

    As I said, unless you can provide a FACTUAL basis that the Second Amendment doesn't address that issue, I will stand by my position.

    No matter how many misinformed and intellectually dishonest scholars you produce.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Well Laci - I guess the rest of us will just follow the current laws of the states that almost all allow for concealed or open carry of a gun in some form or fashion. Is it your theory that these laws are unconstitutional or simply that Congress could pass a new law making them all unconstitutional? How likely do you think it is that Congress will pass such a law and that the Supreme Court will rule it to be Constitutional?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Modern scholarship, says Anonymous, referring to the heller and McDonald decisions and the Dershowitz writings,"has established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms."

    That's not true at all. That may be the law of the land right now, but not because it was proven beyond reasonable doubt but simply because the balance of the Supreme Court was the way it was. One single vote made the difference.

    That makes it more like a whimsical shift in policy and departure from what's right rather than the substantial proof of anything you guys wish it was.

    ReplyDelete
  17. An open forum is Dog Gone, Laci the Dog, and Greg Camp voting on what is true. Liberty is a well-armed Greg Camp contesting the vote.

    ReplyDelete
  18. " Liberty is a well-armed Greg Camp contesting the vote.'

    Proving once again what an utter fool (and seditionist if not outright traitor) he is, Greg Camp says he will secure his liberty (make sure shit he doesn't like happening won't happen) with his gunz. Thanks for continually reaffirming what a complete moron you are, Greg Camp.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Let's see, who should we think is the more knowledgeable in law, history and the US Constitution, Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz and the experts cited here:
    www.saf.org/EMERSONacadsecd.htm
    or some guy pretending to be a legal giant on a blog on the internet?

    What pooch is suggesting is that we should believe his mental gymnastics and forego common sense in favor of perverted twisting of words, and legalese mumbo jumbo.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Democommie, I'm not surprised that you have no sense of humor, but you can't even recognize a parody of Ben Franklin's statement?

    ReplyDelete
  21. As I said, it's pretty obvious that Greg, anonymous, and Jim failed to understand this post.

    No further comments on this from me.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Laci,

    (1) You stated in the original blog entry, "We can also look for further guidance in the Constitution since the Second Amendment must be read within the framework of the constitution." You have it backwards: the U.S. Constitution must be read within the framework of the Bill of Rights, which is a non-exhaustive list of Natural Rights. In case anyone needs a reminder, government in the U.S. exists to secure Natural Rights (citations: Declaration of Independence and Preamble to the U.S. Constitution); and the Bill of Rights is an emphatic statement to guarantee freedoms for the people, limit government, and assure citizens and the States of that fact. (Citation: Preamble to the Bill of Rights.)

    (2) Even if you did want to read the Bill of Rights within the framework of the Constitution, why choose the "provide for the common defense" link? Why not choose "insure domestic Tranquility" or "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" in the Preamble? If you doubt that people today need arms to secure the blessings of liberty, ask the shopkeepers in Los Angeles who stopped the rioters in 1992 from burning and looting their shops. You know, the ones who had to do it themselves because the police refused to respond.

    (3) You stated in your original blog entry, "...the words of an enacting clause were 'generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification,' yet if its words, after due analysis, were 'still dubious' or 'ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate,' one might look to the context, which included 'the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament."
    While that principle is sometimes useful, it is not needed since the stakeholders of the late 1700s and early 1800s did understand the plain meaning of the text of the Second Amendment. And about one or two hours of research makes the plain meaning of the Second Amendment obvious to stakeholders today. What is your authoritative source for declaring that the plain meaning of the words of the Second Amendment are "dubious or ambiguous" and require additional interpretation?

    (4) In your original blog entry you stated, "It is a principle of statutory interpretation that The express mention of one thing excludes all others, that is items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute."
    This would almost be compelling except that the Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This dispels the idea that the only rights we have are what government tells us we have.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And there are more errors Laci:

    (5) You stated in your original blog entry, "Which means that if the 'cause/reason' for the Second Amendment was the 'well-regulated militia', then it could be argued that when that reason ceased, the law ought likewise to cease with it. Thus, those who say that the militia portion is unimportant have made it clear that the reason is no longer valid, therefore, the Second Amendment is without effect and is now void."
    If you insist on qualifying this right, then state the entire prefatory clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state". Thus, in your line of reasoning, if there is still a need for armed militias to secure a free state, the right still stands. A well regulated militia is still needed and useful for the security of a free state. After hurricane Katrina devastated the gulf coast, armed militias with 24 hour watches protected neighborhoods from roving gangs of criminals. This was especially critical because nearly all land telephone, cell phone, and even law enforcement wireless infrastructure was inoperable. Significance: residents could not call 911 to request aid during a criminal attack. And even if they could, law enforcement could not navigate streets blocked with flood water and downed trees. Oh, and did I mention how law enforcement was too busy looting stores like Wal Mart to respond anyway? (You can see video here: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7554865090799900529)

    (6) And then you went on to write, "The right to keep and bear arms is tied to the militia since no other purpose is mentioned in the text. Additionally, if we look in the Constitution, we find that one of its stated purposes is to 'provide for the common defence'. So, it would seem far more likely that the right is in some way tied to a 'well regulated militia' than some other purpose."
    The right is tied to "good guys" whose motivation is securing the state. The prefatory clause is a very succinct way of disqualifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms for nefarious purposes. But this last construction is a negative way of listing a limitation on people where the purpose of the Bill of Rights is to codify the freedoms of the people and limits of government.

    (7) And you never bothered to expound upon the word militia. The historical meaning of militia has two basic parts: who and for what purpose. The "who" is all able bodied males of appropriate age who are not already paid military personnel. The "for what purpose" is to defend (secure) their communities, States, and nation from attacks on their liberty. There are no qualifications on how small or large, local or national a threat to liberty must be for the militia to act. There are no qualifications on how many members of the militia must respond to a threat. There are no qualifications of how explicit the structure or associations of militia members must be. Thus any citizen acting in that capacity is acting as a militia member and has a right to bear arms.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yes, Captain, but the militia is now the national guard per 10 USC 311.

    Captain, are you aware that the Declaration of Independence is a historic document and not legal authority? Do you know why that is?

    I am not sure of the point that you are trying to make, but individuals without arms, training, and organisation are ineffective to perform the tasks that you mention--hence the belief in the institution of the militia--not a private right to arms outside that organisation.

    Did the shopkeepers stop the rioters or the police and national guard? Could an individual shop keeper stop a mob, even if armed?

    Your proposition is silly.

    And about one or two hours of research makes the plain meaning of the Second Amendment obvious to stakeholders today. What is your authoritative source for declaring that the plain meaning of the words of the Second Amendment are "dubious or ambiguous" and require additional interpretation?

    The fact that you are insisting that the Second Amendment applies in any other context than ensuring that the militia is kept as a vibrant institution.

    As I said, the more people like you make your silly arguments--the more you prove that I am correct!

    Comment (4) demonstrates that you failed to understand this post, crunchy.

    (5) demonstrates that you do not understand the current state of US law relating to the militia, crunchy. See Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 US 334 (1990). Since the Second Amendment only applies to the militia established under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16--not a bunch of silly idiots who have no fucking idea what they are talking about running around with guns and saying they are a "militia".

    (6) again, the militia is the body established under article I, Section 8, clause 16--your comments demonstrate a severe lack of understanding of the US constitution.

    (7) I don't need to ellaborate on the historic concept of the militia, since the militia under the US Constitution is the body created under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

    On the other hand, if I did want to get into historical militias--they are trained bands of armed citizenry which are under governmental control.

    The fascination with the militia over a professional army is highly important in this debate--the militia is a localised force of amateur soldiers. The belief was that local control offered benefits over professional soldiers.

    You also can't neglect that civilian control over the military was another important aspect of this debate, which a localised militia provided.

    Thus any citizen acting in that capacity is acting as a militia member and has a right to bear arms.

    Incorrect, the militia is created according to article I, section 8, clause 16:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

    Unless the citizen is part of a unit created under this article, they are not the militia per the US constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  25. All right, then, Laci, why don't you tell us the reason that the majorities in Heller and McDonald found an individual right to firearms without any connection to militia service? Don't bug me about the dissent, since dissents create no precedent, unless they're used later in a new majority opinion. And don't bug me about registration, since the decisions don't require that. Just explain to us how the majority reached the decisions that they made.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Greg,because they wanted to find that right irrespective of legal principles.

    They used their own prejudices, not the law.

    They twisted and tortured logic to come up with an aberration (Heller) compounded by absurdity (McDonald).

    If you don't like elitism, then you should despise these decisions since they were bought and paid for by the Cato Institute.

    Don't bug me about the dissent, since dissents create no precedent, unless they're used later in a new majority opinion.

    My Greg, you really have no idea of how law is practised--do you?

    Maybe I should keep bugging you about your obvious ignorance.

    No,you prefer to just keep demonstrating that on your own.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Laci the Dog,

    If the Supreme Court majority finds a law unconstitutional, are you saying that the dissenting minority opinion keeps the law in force? Tell us, please, just how does a dissent work.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Laci,

    Some feedback:

    I am aware that the Declaration of Independence is a historical document.

    Yes, well armed individual shopkeepers kept mobs at bay and protected their property. I don't believe individual shopkeepers played a decisive role in ending the riots.

    Now a request for an important clarification:

    I am not yet grasping how the Second Amendment only applies to a militia as defined in Article 1, Section 8, but let's say for discussion that is correct. According to Article 1, Section 8, clause 16, Congress has the power to arm the Militia. So why would the States need a guarantee that the militia had a right to be armed? I read your comment about how Congress could fail to arm the militia. Of course an unarmed militia is useless. How would a useless militia serve the needs of the federal government?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Laci,

    Please tell me your opinion on the following doctrine which I mentioned earlier:

    (a) Government in the U.S. exists to secure Natural Rights (justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, general Welfare, liberty, etc. in the preamble of the Constitution.)
    (b) The Bill of Rights is a formal statement to guarantee freedoms/rights for the people and limit government.
    (c) The Bill of Rights is a non-exhaustive subset of Natural Rights.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Greg Camp:

    I have a great sense of humor. You're as funny as a truckload of dead babies.

    ReplyDelete