Justice Stevens: No to Guns, Yes to Cell Phones
via Outdoor Life
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens says your right to
self-defense in your own home should be limited to a cellphone "at your
bedside."
Stevens, 92, served on the Supreme Court for 35 years before retiring
in 2010. A liberal jurist, Stevens wrote the dissenting opinions on
both the 2008 Heller ruling and the 2010 McDonald decision, both of
which were 5-4 affirmations that the Second Amendment protects an
individual's civil right to keep and bear arms.
"Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell
phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might
provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not
used to using,” he said to laughter, according to an Oct. 16 article by
Reuters.
In addition to telling Americans to trade in their rifles
for cellphones, Stevens said the Heller and McDonald rulings leave room
for restrictions on the right to carry outside the home, bans on certain
styles of firearms, elimination of carry rights in "sensitive" places
and background-check requirements for private gun sales.
“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting
the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the
tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent
years,” he said.
Stevens went on to say that the legal precedent for restricting gun
rights -- United States vs. Miller -- still stands, despite Heller and
McDonald rulings.
The 1939 Miller ruling limited "the scope of the Second Amendment to
the uses of arms that were related to military activities,” Stevens
said. “The Court did not overrule Miller. Instead it read Miller to say
only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not
typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as
short-barreled shotguns."
This interpretation of Miller is flawed, most legal scholars contend,
and was strongly rebuked by Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion
in Heller. Scalia described Stevens' argument as "simply wrong" because
he "flatly misreads the historical record" of the Second Amendment.
"In both of his dissents, Justice Stevens contended that the right to
keep and bear arms was limited to state militia service," said Alan
Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and
Bear Arms. "It was, and remains, an astonishing position on a
fundamental civil right."
This interpretation of Miller is flawed, most legal scholars contend, and was strongly rebuked by Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion in Heller. Scalia described Stevens' argument as "simply wrong" because he "flatly misreads the historical record" of the Second Amendment.
ReplyDelete"In both of his dissents, Justice Stevens contended that the right to keep and bear arms was limited to state militia service," said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. "It was, and remains, an astonishing position on a fundamental civil right."
I would note that this comes from Outdoor Life, not a respectable legal journal.
The bulk of the "Second Amendment Scholarship", using the term "Scholarship" extremely loosely, is geared toward promoting the concept of individual rights and the radical reinterpretation of the Second Amendment.
As Stevens points out, Heller-McDonald is taken to strictly limit the newly created right by the Courts, since hardly any laws have been overturned post-Heller-McDonald.
But, Stevens also points out that Miller still stands as precedent since it was not overturned by Heller-McDonald.
Thus, a Judge could call the Second Amendment pseudo-Scholarship, which is extremely easy to do. The historic record is pretty clear that the issue was the nature of the US military establishment from a proper reading of primary source material (Asked and answered more than enough times).
Thus, what really happened was that Heller-McDonald created a new interpretation of the Second Amendment based upon a political agenda, not a proper legal basis, for the purpose of making this far more of a wedge issue than it should be.
I have found that the people who claim to love the US constitution have little idea of what it actually says, or means, which is why this is an issue.
Please show us how the various statements and court opinions that clearly affirm the fundamental, individual (not collective or militia) right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and state, for the first 100 or so years of the existence of the U.S., were all forgeries and thus not valid.
DeleteI believe that Miller can be interpreted to endow a collective State "Militia" with all arms within U.S. borders, (although it has been chosen to interpret this section to bear a different context) and therefore sanction all weapons on U.S. soil as some form of State property, to be appropriated for official use by non-individual entities.
DeleteLaci, do you think that a Right to Civilian Disarmament can be derived fro the language in the preamble (of the U.S. Constitution) sanctioning as the duty of Government to "ensure domestic tranquility", "promote the general welfare", "provide for the common defense"? If there exists such a Right to Disarmament of the mere citizen as expressed by the constitution, does congress bear the responsibility to adopt prohibitive statutes concerning the proliferation and possession by mere civilians, who do not convey public authority, are not entrusted with the safety of the populace, and not endowed with coercive power (therefore requiring the use of arms) over other subjects.
So Laci, you're not bothered by the fact that the defense presented no case in Miller? Beyond that, Heller and McDonald don't require any restrictions. They may allow for some, but they don't add any. There could be a new good ruling soon, once various cases work their way up, including the one from Maryland that overturned that state's may-issue licensing system. But one thing that you've never successfully answered: How does "the right of the people" mean anything other than what those words clearly mean?
DeleteE.N., there is no right to be coerced from on high. There is no right to be controlled. Also, governments do not have rights. They have powers. In a free society, those powers are strictly limited.
The decision to require the Maryland State police to issue carry licences is subject to an injunction, pending appeal. It is likely that the 4th circuit will find the current system to be entirely within the authority of the State in question.
DeleteGreg, the common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State.
Any "right of the people" is to be exercised collectively, as mandated for participation, enlistment, and conscription into a "well regulated Militia".
Really, E.N? So both the 9th and 10th Ammendments to the Constitution are meaningless, and were meaningless at the time of their adoption? You can give up your rights if you want to, E.N., but you can keep your hands off of mine.
DeleteYour multiple personalities are talking to each other now? Please get help.
Delete@E.N.
Delete"Greg, the common subject has no rights in a civilized society. When a government is formed, all rights previously retained by individuals are collectivized, and left to the discretion of the State."
Wow! Simply wow! That is about the scariest shit I have ever read on this blog. Like I said in a previous post ... Please Please tell me you don't vote!!!
Yes, E.N. sounds like someone in the propaganda ministry from a Soviet Bloc country circa 1950. He has no concept of American values or the principle by which our society was organized.
DeleteThe good that he does here is to express what his fellow control freaks really believe.
E.N. is surely posting everything as sarcasm, assuming he lives here in the USA. Nobody that lives here could possibly hold those views.
Delete"Please Please tell me you don't vote"
DeleteEven if you cast a ballot, in a State such as Texas, a mere peasant (such as yourself) does not truly vote.
On which forum do you hope I do not vote? A politburo? A committee? or something even more "scary"?
Anonymous,
For the last time, I AM NOT "Laci".
Greg,
"no concept of American values or the principle by which our society was organized"
Any civilized society requires the subjugation of the mere citizen (peasant) to it's rulers, in order to guarantee life, liberty and property for all to enjoy
Citizens cannot enjoy life, liberty, and property in a society where they're seen as mere peasants. The only secure enjoyment of those things is in nations in which citizens are the fundamental unit and the society as a whole has limited coercive powers.
DeleteOk, I will bite... what do you mean by "Even if you cast a ballot, in a State such as Texas, a mere peasant (such as yourself) does not truly vote." ?
DeleteAnonymous, he's going on about the Electoral College, despite the fact that it reflects the popular vote of each state.
Delete"On which forum do you hope I do not vote? A politburo? A committee? or something even more "scary"?"
DeleteIt was in an earlier thread when you were spouting off more communist manifesto type BS.
"Even if you cast a ballot, in a State such as Texas, a mere peasant (such as yourself) does not truly vote."
The presidential election is not the only one in which I am concerned. If many people believing your communist BS were to cast ballots on local races and initiatives I would also be concerned.
No one requires another person's permission to defend themselves and their families.
ReplyDeleteNo one requires another person's permission to have the means to defend themselves and their families.
Stevens was in the minority, and he's now retired. His remarks show that he's out of touch with American traditions and with gun facts, but he's free to speak, just like any other citizen.
ReplyDelete“The Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or the use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years,” he said.
ReplyDeleteAutomatic weapons? How can a Supreme Court Justice be so ignorant on a topic that he wrote the dissenting opinion on?
"Maybe you have some kind of constitutional right to have a cell phone with a pre-dialed 911 in the number at your bedside and that might provide you with a little better protection than a gun which you’re not used to using,”
And what if I am used to using it?
Another thing about the retired justice's comment show just how out of touch with American values he is. "Maybe you have some kind of contitutional right to have a cell phone..." Maybe? Is there any doubt? If I were a woman, I'd have a right to an abortion, even that that's not specifically enumerated, but having a cell phone ready to use is up for debate?
ReplyDeleteGreg,
DeleteMere citizens (of a civilized society) do not possess any enforceable individual rights. You do not have any right to a mobile phone, or (females) to an abortion. The State simply cannot outright prohibit such activities under the current constitution.
E.N, what country are you talking about? American citizens regularly file cases against our government and win on many Constitutional grounds. And I'm not just talking about guns here. Look at the many freedom of religion lawsuits, free expression lawsuits, illegal search and seizure lawsuits, and on and on.
DeleteI think he was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the cell phone remark. He was addressing the Brady people remember. His main point is the 2A was all about the militia and has no relevance in today's world in spite of the one-vote majority decisions in Heller and McDonald.
ReplyDeleteOh, right, I forgot: He was talking to idiots. Thanks for reminding us, Mikeb.
Delete