Second Amendment rights.

[Contumacious]

Really?

You compare 1933 Germany..to the US constitution?

Are you expecting to be taken seriously here?

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

How fucking asinine. Meds not kick in yet?

So what kind of "work" do you do for the feds?

.

 

[Anachronism]

Should there be a punishment to those who talk back to police? What should it be? Would you be in favor of a system like in the former Soviet Union? or today in Iran? Should people have any rights in the face of the police? How can you say you are for freedom with views like these?

I have made no attempt during my time here at USMB to portray myself as anything other than the Authoritarian that I am, Serge. If you've read any of my other commentaries on topics that should have been very clear going into this conversation.

I am not a huge believer in Freedom OR Liberty for the vast majority of American citizens of both genders and the wide array of races. I find that most Americans have neither the intellect nor the moral compass to have earned these Privileges; which is exactly what I believe they should be.

You want to yell at a cop, swear at them, toss them the bird as they're walking or driving by, be my guest. However, the moment you enter into an active "professional" engagement with a police officer, they should be treated with the utmost of professionalism and respect at all times. Anyone caught interfeering with an Officer in the line of duty should be spending 30 days in jail. Anyone caught attempting to flee an officer or resisting arrest by force should be allowed to be shot by the officer as it is an admission of guilt in my mind.

I never said anything about foreigners mentally ill or any of the other characters you mention owning guns. Only law abiding citizens, but in enough quantity that they become a credible deterrent to governmental malfeasance. But it sounds like you are on the side of malfeasance. Is this a conservative position? It sounds more Orwellian, with thought police and limits on free speech.

There are already more than enough law-abiding gun owners in this country that it should already have had the effect you suggest if it were going to. It doesn't and it hasn't, nor will it ever. You want to know why?.... because most of the law abiding gun owners are on the same side as the cops. What you see as governmental malfeasance is what we'd like to see the police doing more of.... Kicking in the doors of drug houses at 3am in SWAT style raids; busting up gangs; taking the bad people to jail and keeping them there for a long, long time.

It sounds like you don't support the First Amendment in terms of individuals speech to police officers. It also sounds like you want to put dangerous limits on the Second Amendment. I assume you continue to support the 3rd Amendment. Sounds like you are wholeheartedly against the Fourth Amendment and maybe the Fifth (Miranda rights? Except perhaps if its used by Ollie North, Eliot Abrams or one of the Bush era criminals). I tell you what, this conversation has made me an ever more staunch defender of the bill of rights.

I believe that there need to be significant limitations and qualifications on ALL of the "Rights" of American citizens. I would implement this first by getting rid of birthright citizenship in total and making people EARN the Right to be a US Citizen; something that would be tougher to earn than to lose. Those who are not citizens of the US would not have the protections of the Privileges of Freedom and Liberty.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

Should there be a punishment to those who talk back to police? What should it be? Would you be in favor of a system like in the former Soviet Union? or today in Iran? Should people have any rights in the face of the police? How can you say you are for freedom with views like these?

I have made no attempt during my time here at USMB to portray myself as anything other than the Authoritarian that I am, Serge. If you've read any of my other commentaries on topics that should have been very clear going into this conversation.

I am not a huge believer in Freedom OR Liberty for the vast majority of American citizens of both genders and the wide array of races. I find that most Americans have neither the intellect nor the moral compass to have earned these Privileges; which is exactly what I believe they should be.

You want to yell at a cop, swear at them, toss them the bird as they're walking or driving by, be my guest. However, the moment you enter into an active "professional" engagement with a police officer, they should be treated with the utmost of professionalism and respect at all times. Anyone caught interfeering with an Officer in the line of duty should be spending 30 days in jail. Anyone caught attempting to flee an officer or resisting arrest by force should be allowed to be shot by the officer as it is an admission of guilt in my mind.

I never said anything about foreigners mentally ill or any of the other characters you mention owning guns. Only law abiding citizens, but in enough quantity that they become a credible deterrent to governmental malfeasance. But it sounds like you are on the side of malfeasance. Is this a conservative position? It sounds more Orwellian, with thought police and limits on free speech.

There are already more than enough law-abiding gun owners in this country that it should already have had the effect you suggest if it were going to. It doesn't and it hasn't, nor will it ever. You want to know why?.... because most of the law abiding gun owners are on the same side as the cops. What you see as governmental malfeasance is what we'd like to see the police doing more of.... Kicking in the doors of drug houses at 3am in SWAT style raids; busting up gangs; taking the bad people to jail and keeping them there for a long, long time.

It sounds like you don't support the First Amendment in terms of individuals speech to police officers. It also sounds like you want to put dangerous limits on the Second Amendment. I assume you continue to support the 3rd Amendment. Sounds like you are wholeheartedly against the Fourth Amendment and maybe the Fifth (Miranda rights? Except perhaps if its used by Ollie North, Eliot Abrams or one of the Bush era criminals). I tell you what, this conversation has made me an ever more staunch defender of the bill of rights.

I believe that there need to be significant limitations and qualifications on ALL of the "Rights" of American citizens. I would implement this first by getting rid of birthright citizenship in total and making people EARN the Right to be a US Citizen; something that would be tougher to earn than to lose. Those who are not citizens of the US would not have the protections of the Privileges of Freedom and Liberty.

I have to admit, reading your response gives me a great deal of respect for you consistency on this. In my mind, you don't stand for American or patriotic values, but rather as you say, authoritarian values--akin perhaps to Putin's Russia. But I respect you enormously for being honest and consistent with your opinions.

I believe in building the fabric of this country. This is part of being patriotic. I think distrust of the government and its most heavily armed representatives--the police--is an American value that I support.

When Bush spoke about "freedom" all the time, you agreed it was a bunch of BS, right? When FOXNEWS cons people with their lies to further (Australian born) Rupert Murdoch's Newcorp's bottom line, you don't believe it, but you see it as a part of instituting authoritarian rule? You hear Noam Chomsky's theory's and you agree with what he's saying, but you are on the opposite side of him, I am guessing? I am hoping you hate CNN as much as I do with their cotton candy news aimed at the female demographic. You think the Iraq war was all about oil and furthering corporate interest of former clients of Dick Cheney and you support it for those reasons and not the BS about weapons of mass destruction? You knew Reagan lied about Iran Contra and you supported him for it? I am not sure where this is going, but I am guessing you and I agree on most of the issues, we're just on opposite sides.

 

[Anachronism]

I have to admit, reading your response gives me a great deal of respect for you consistency on this. In my mind, you don't stand for American or patriotic values, but rather as you say, authoritarian values--akin perhaps to Putin's Russia. But I respect you enormously for being honest and consistent with your opinions.

Thank you for the kind words, Serge. We obviously have very different viewpoints on this but we've been able to have a civil and rational discussion on the topic.

I believe in building the fabric of this country. This is part of being patriotic. I think distrust of the government and its most heavily armed representatives--the police--is an American value that I support.

The country that my family helped found is no more, Serge. That country died with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Hell this isn't even the country the other main part of my family came to in 1910. It's probably my belief in Law & Order above pretty much all else that gives us the totally different points of view on this topic.

When Bush spoke about "freedom" all the time, you agreed it was a bunch of BS, right? When FOXNEWS cons people with their lies to further (Australian born) Rupert Murdoch's Newcorp's bottom line, you don't believe it, but you see it as a part of instituting authoritarian rule? You hear Noam Chomsky's theory's and you agree with what he's saying, but you are on the opposite side of him, I am guessing? I am hoping you hate CNN as much as I do with their cotton candy news aimed at the female demographic. You think the Iraq war was all about oil and furthering corporate interest of former clients of Dick Cheney and you support it for those reasons and not the BS about weapons of mass destruction? You knew Reagan lied about Iran Contra and you supported him for it? I am not sure where this is going, but I am guessing you and I agree on most of the issues, we're just on opposite sides.

Serge, the last politician I had any respect for was President Andrew Jackson. I don't listen to or watch any of the talking heads on television. I read and watch a variety of different news sources and have generally found that the small amount of what they say that is the same is generally where the nugget of truth lies. Everything beyond that is spin and opinion. I can't say I've read a lot of Chomsky's work, but I do respect him for being a "here's how you get it done" type. WMD's were a crock of shit, as is the oil thing (though that was a nice bonus). Iraq was about removing a man who had been assembling plans to try and assassinate at least one, if not two former US Presidents (the First Bush and possibly Clinton). Iran Contra was a joke. This "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff is bullcrap. Our only true allies are the people of THIS country, and many here don't even fit that bill.

 

[Sallow]

No dumb ass, I compare federal bureaucrats to nazi officials.

.

How fucking asinine. Meds not kick in yet?

So what kind of "work" do you do for the feds?

.

I don't work for the feds. Never held a public sector job or a union job in my life. My field is IT focusing on financial markets.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

I have to admit, reading your response gives me a great deal of respect for you consistency on this. In my mind, you don't stand for American or patriotic values, but rather as you say, authoritarian values--akin perhaps to Putin's Russia. But I respect you enormously for being honest and consistent with your opinions.

Thank you for the kind words, Serge. We obviously have very different viewpoints on this but we've been able to have a civil and rational discussion on the topic.

I believe in building the fabric of this country. This is part of being patriotic. I think distrust of the government and its most heavily armed representatives--the police--is an American value that I support.

The country that my family helped found is no more, Serge. That country died with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Hell this isn't even the country the other main part of my family came to in 1910. It's probably my belief in Law & Order above pretty much all else that gives us the totally different points of view on this topic.

When Bush spoke about "freedom" all the time, you agreed it was a bunch of BS, right? When FOXNEWS cons people with their lies to further (Australian born) Rupert Murdoch's Newcorp's bottom line, you don't believe it, but you see it as a part of instituting authoritarian rule? You hear Noam Chomsky's theory's and you agree with what he's saying, but you are on the opposite side of him, I am guessing? I am hoping you hate CNN as much as I do with their cotton candy news aimed at the female demographic. You think the Iraq war was all about oil and furthering corporate interest of former clients of Dick Cheney and you support it for those reasons and not the BS about weapons of mass destruction? You knew Reagan lied about Iran Contra and you supported him for it? I am not sure where this is going, but I am guessing you and I agree on most of the issues, we're just on opposite sides.

Serge, the last politician I had any respect for was President Andrew Jackson. I don't listen to or watch any of the talking heads on television. I read and watch a variety of different news sources and have generally found that the small amount of what they say that is the same is generally where the nugget of truth lies. Everything beyond that is spin and opinion. I can't say I've read a lot of Chomsky's work, but I do respect him for being a "here's how you get it done" type. WMD's were a crock of shit, as is the oil thing (though that was a nice bonus). Iraq was about removing a man who had been assembling plans to try and assassinate at least one, if not two former US Presidents (the First Bush and possibly Clinton). Iran Contra was a joke. This "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" stuff is bullcrap. Our only true allies are the people of THIS country, and many here don't even fit that bill.

Here, here. I don't like Lincoln either. I don't believe that a country should be kept together at the barrel of a gun. US foreign policy typically supports self determination for all peoples (Chechnya, former Yugoslavia, etc.). I am obviously against slavery and I have clearly stated my views on police violence towards minorities. But I think framing the civil war on slavery is revisionist history. I believe in non-violence strongly. I think its valid to say that looking back there could have been other options besides a civil war in this country. I believe all the "social issues" that people vote on (abortion, gun control, etc.) are based on civil war divisions and are manufactured as wedge issues for political manipulation. The decedents of the Southerns who fought in the civil war are more for their own region than the good of the country. This war destroyed the social fabric of this country. What was the alternative? What would have been so terrible to grant regional autonomy to the confederacy. Slavery was a bankrupt policy by then. If they ended it themselves, instead of being humiliated by the North, they could have their own theocratic state and the North would have continued to be a thriving industrial region. Instead was have a country that is dysfunctional to this day, because of this short-sitedness.

I am very much in favor of states rights and more importantly building regional governmental single task entities where needed. Instead of Amtrak in the Northeast, how about a regional transportation entity that has more input from the states? Instead of each state having its own health care policies and costs associated with these inefficiencies, how about a regional policy that can be ideologically in check with the people in that region. The federal government is far to big and the states are too small, too incompetent and run by legislatures that are typically alcohol, skit chasing, criminals on the take by the people who give them campaign contributions.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

How fucking asinine. Meds not kick in yet?

So what kind of "work" do you do for the feds?

.

I don't work for the feds. Never held a public sector job or a union job in my life. My field is IT focusing on financial markets.

I used to be in IT also, but what on earth are you two fighting about?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

The Second Amendment was meant just as it was interpreted in Heller.

You mean the Court reaffirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right.

No, that’s per the ruling:

The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.

The dissents even acknowledged this. The disagreement was really over standard of scrutiny to be applied, not whether the right secured by the 2nd was collective or individual. The dissents argued for lowered scrutiny and especially Stevens' interest balancing approach never had a chance. Accepting those ridiculous scrutiny standards was the only thing that would have affirmed the DC statutes in question . . .

You might be confusing Heller with McDonald – level of review wasn’t addressed in Heller:

Justice Breyer moves on to make a broad jurisprudential point: He criticizes us for declining to establish a level of scrutiny for evaluating Second Amendment restrictions.

There is no doubt that the primary intent (object) of the 2nd Amendment was to preserve the general militia concept the framers embraced . . . That the farmers and carpenters, the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers could, at a moment's notice when called to muster, present themselves with an appropriate weapon and ammunition, (supplied by themselves and of the type in common use), accessories and provisions to be in the field for a few days.

Scalia disagrees – it was his intent to move the interpretation to an individual right:

Contrary to Justice Stevens’ wholly unsupported assertion, post, at 17, there was no pre-existing right in English law “to use weapons for certain military purposes” or to use arms in an organized militia.

That object of the Amendment can not be realized without the means to achieve it, which are the personal arms of the private citizen (until called). The means is what the Amendment protects; the pre-existing right of the citizen to keep and bear arms so the object can be achieved.

Scalia had to balance all this:

A) The "original intent" of the Amendment which no longer has force of law to bring that object to fruition.
B) That the Amendment remains a claimable immunity for the individual citizen, securing a never surrendered right.
C) Trying to then decide the constitutionality of a law written under the commerce clause but defended by an appeal to the long dead powers once found in the militia clauses.

The individual right codified by the Amendment was realized via the right to self-defense:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

 

[SergeGainsbourg]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

The Second Amendment was meant just as it was interpreted in Heller.

You mean the Court reaffirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right.

No, that’s per the ruling:



You might be confusing Heller with McDonald – level of review wasn’t addressed in Heller:





Scalia disagrees – it was his intent to move the interpretation to an individual right:

That object of the Amendment can not be realized without the means to achieve it, which are the personal arms of the private citizen (until called). The means is what the Amendment protects; the pre-existing right of the citizen to keep and bear arms so the object can be achieved.

Scalia had to balance all this:

A) The "original intent" of the Amendment which no longer has force of law to bring that object to fruition.
B) That the Amendment remains a claimable immunity for the individual citizen, securing a never surrendered right.
C) Trying to then decide the constitutionality of a law written under the commerce clause but defended by an appeal to the long dead powers once found in the militia clauses.

The individual right codified by the Amendment was realized via the right to self-defense:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

Once again reaffirming my belief in the depravity of Justice Scalia.

 

[Contumacious]

How fucking asinine. Meds not kick in yet?

So what kind of "work" do you do for the feds?

.

I don't work for the feds. Never held a public sector job or a union job in my life. My field is IT focusing on financial markets.

You don't..........so what's up with the ass kissing.....are you out on probation?

.

 

[Sallow]

The second amendment was meant to prevent foreign governments from invading our shores.

That's it. Pure and simple.

Cheap way to have an army.

The Second Amendment was meant just as it was interpreted in Heller.

You mean the Court reaffirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right.

No, that’s per the ruling:




You might be confusing Heller with McDonald – level of review wasn’t addressed in Heller:





Scalia disagrees – it was his intent to move the interpretation to an individual right:

That object of the Amendment can not be realized without the means to achieve it, which are the personal arms of the private citizen (until called). The means is what the Amendment protects; the pre-existing right of the citizen to keep and bear arms so the object can be achieved.

Scalia had to balance all this:

A) The "original intent" of the Amendment which no longer has force of law to bring that object to fruition.
B) That the Amendment remains a claimable immunity for the individual citizen, securing a never surrendered right.
C) Trying to then decide the constitutionality of a law written under the commerce clause but defended by an appeal to the long dead powers once found in the militia clauses.

The individual right codified by the Amendment was realized via the right to self-defense:

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS...

 

[Sallow]

What revisionist history have you been studying??!!

None.

You do know that the Continental Army was disbanded after the revolution. Right?

Oh wait.

No, the:

That's it. Pure and simple.

revisionist part.

For petes sake..isn't that a little anal? Of course I don't really believe it's "pure and simple". As with any legal document...unless it's pages and pages of intricate legalize that covers every single detail and possible event..there's going to be lots and lots of "interpretation".

 

[Abatis]

You mean the Court reaffirmed that the 2nd secures an individual right.

No, that’s per the ruling:

Scalia's superficial summary aside, both dissents affirm that the right is an individual right:

Steven's wrote:

• "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

Of course Stevens then proceeds to dislocate individual action from the protection sphere of a right that can be "enforced by individuals" but only for collective action (which has never happened and no standing to do so would ever be granted). . .

Breyer is even more expressive in his individual right explanation and contradictory with his ensuing analysis:

• "In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
  (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting)."

So, "the entire Court subscribes" to the individual right interpretation which is in agreement with all three opinions in Heller and SCOTUS precedent.

As I said, the individual right interpretation was reaffirmed in Heller.

You might be confusing Heller with McDonald – level of review wasn’t addressed in Heller:

While no standard was formally established for all 2nd Amendment challenged law by Heller, where self defense is claimed it seems strict scrutiny is the standard demanded. It also seems that rational relationship is completely off the table and for gun ownership for hunting, it has been seen that intermediate scrutiny is applied (US v Skoien).

Bryer's (I don't know why I wrote Stevens before) interest balancing approach was addressed by the Majority, strongly in the negative. From what I have seen it seems no deviation is going to be realized for the RKBA from how other fundamental right interests are treated by the Court. (And lower courts are doing OK so far, see the most recent Nordyke)

Scalia disagrees – it was his intent to move the interpretation to an individual right:

It has always been considered by SCOTUS to be an individual right. Name one Supreme Court case that stands for the proposition that the right is NOT individual.

The individual right codified by the Amendment was realized via the right to self-defense:

I request a bit of analytical thinking here . . . What type of gun ownership right was at issue in the case falling between Miller and Heller, Lewis v US, 445 U.S. 55 (1980)?

In Lewis SCOTUS examined the legislative intent to impose a firearms disability on any felon based on the fact of conviction. The sponsor of this part of GCA'68, Senator Long, stated that "every citizen could possess a gun until the commission of his first felony" and that the right disablement was meant to, "deny every assassin, murderer, thief and burglar of the right to possess a firearm in the future except where he has been pardoned by the President or a State Governor and had been expressedly authorized by his pardon to possess a firearm." The Court notes that, as the felon disablement amendment's sponsor, Senator Long's statements are entitled to considerable weight. The Court thus recognizes that a non-felon does possess an individual right to own and use firearms for lawful purposes.

I find it especially interesting that when the Court reviews the different measures of disability relief available to the felon, the Court never mentions that after his pardon, in order to fully reclaim his right to acquire, own and use a firearm for lawful purpose, the felon must join his state's militia.

It seems inexplicable to me that the Court would forget the single determinative conditioning factor that makes one's individual right to arms legally valid!

For me Lewis is unremarkable because it is plainly the Court's opinion that one's individual right to arms is exercisable and claimable without any connection to militia (until you commit a felony).

When you render them down the Heller dissents are essentially arguing that instead of enjoying an inherent right, an inherent disability exists on the citizen's individual right to keep and bear arms until one joins their state's militia.

What an utterly absurd theory.

As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.

Does that passage really strike you as exceptional or groundbreaking, upsetting precedent?

 

[Abatis]

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS...

You should be able to articulate why you believe the current interpretation is incorrect.

Especially when the current one isn't much different from the others.

 

[Sallow]

Scalia's an idiot. And my opinion stands..the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect...and dangerous. But of course..I don't sit on the SCOTUS...

You should be able to articulate why you believe the current interpretation is incorrect.

Especially when the current one isn't much different from the others.

I have.

Although the amendment, is to say the least, awkwardly worded...there's enough in the United States Constitution to derive that this was meant as a way of insuring that there were men ready to join in the defense of the homeland on an "as needed" basis. The Constitution provides temporary funding to land forces..and provides permanent funding to the navy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.

My only question is based on this premise where is the line in terms of the regulation of weapons in the hands of the civilian population?

There are a number of cases working their way through the courts now addressing just that. It could be some 20 years or so before we have a comprehensive picture of what that would look like, Heller being decided only in 2008.

I believe the Second codifies a fundamental right, and any law designed to regulate that right should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review.

I believe the following to be un-Constitutional: restrictions on firearms due to cosmetic configuration, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and/or capacity, waiting periods, restrictions on firearms purchased during a given time period, permits, licenses, registration requirements, training requirements, and any other regulation deemed overly burdensome to acquire or possess a firearm.

The issue for decades with regard to gun regulation has been a de facto ‘presumption of guilt’ of gun owners – that there’s something ‘wrong’ with someone who wises to buy or own a firearm, making excessive restrictions ‘necessary.’

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

 

[Sallow]

In Heller the court ruled there is a fundamental right to self-defense; and as the handgun is the most common form of self-defense chosen by Americans, its possession is Constitutionally protected.



There are a number of cases working their way through the courts now addressing just that. It could be some 20 years or so before we have a comprehensive picture of what that would look like, Heller being decided only in 2008.

I believe the Second codifies a fundamental right, and any law designed to regulate that right should be subject to strict scrutiny, the highest standard of review.

I believe the following to be un-Constitutional: restrictions on firearms due to cosmetic configuration, such as pistol grips, detachable magazines and/or capacity, waiting periods, restrictions on firearms purchased during a given time period, permits, licenses, registration requirements, training requirements, and any other regulation deemed overly burdensome to acquire or possess a firearm.

The issue for decades with regard to gun regulation has been a de facto ‘presumption of guilt’ of gun owners – that there’s something ‘wrong’ with someone who wises to buy or own a firearm, making excessive restrictions ‘necessary.’

I believe the original intent of the amendment was self-defense against a government gone astray rather than individual self-defense. Therefore hand guns are fairly meaningless in this context, no?

No. The 2nd includes self defense, community defense and Defense from oppressive Government. Do not forget that when the 2nd was written we used militias for everything. There were few if any actual police forces communities used militia for defense.

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I love the 2nd amendment.

Where's the line? What kinds of weapons would you ban and why?

The only weapons that can be restricted are those not suited for military/ militia use. And that is in accordence to some early Superme Court rulings.

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."
- Google Scholar

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:


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.
- Google Scholar

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I believe that the second amendment is outdated. You can have any gun you want, as long as it was available at the time the amendment was put in. That means muskets and nothing else.

The first amend is out dated, the only laws and amendments that are legal are those which were written by using a quill and parchment. Since that was the manner of writting when the Bill of rights were written.

 

[Abatis]

Although the amendment, is to say the least, awkwardly worded...

Immaterial to the existence or scope of the citizen's right to arms. The principle that the right exists and is possessed by the citizen without any reference to the words of the Amendment is quite well settled (Scalia's completely unnecessary and dangerous textual analysis in Heller notwithstanding).

The 2nd's only "action", like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights that secures an inherent, pre-existing right of the citizen, is to redundantly forbid the federal government from exercising powers it was never granted.

Since the right was fully retained by the citizen and thus does not flow from the Amendment, it is illegitimate to grant the words, upon which the right does not depend, conditional, qualifying or outwardly restraining qualities no matter what one believes modern reconstruction of the phrases or redefinition of the words now demands.

there's enough in the United States Constitution to derive that this was meant as a way of insuring that there were men ready to join in the defense of the homeland on an "as needed" basis.

Certainly the "object" of the Amendment was to preserve the general militia concept and to ensure that the citizenry would always be a viable entity to aid the civil authorities and to secure their own liberties.

That object is not self sustaining and neither can it be preserved by simply doubling down on the grant of powers found in the Art I § 8 militia clauses. The general militia concept can only be preserved by forever securing from government interference, the right of the general citizenry (as individuals) to keep and bear arms.

No clause in the constitution exists that provides for a "Defense" against a domestic government.

I challenge you to find it.

In fact..in this very thread..I posted quite the opposite.

Why would an explanation of a retained right be found in a charter of conferred powers? Why would we the people, in establishing the Constitution, give back to ourselves something we never parted with? That is the absurdity of inspecting the Constitution for any right, (like the right to defend against the domestic government), or worse, reading the Bill of Rights for instruction on the scope of our rights . . .

When you contract for the sale of a property you own, do you list in the contract all the other properties you own that you are reserving ownership of and thus are not included in the contract? Even if you did, could said list and the words used to exclude those other properties from the contract be twisted into including them in the contract? That's what is being done to the Bill of Rights!

When the government is violating the principles of its establishment it is no longer, 'the government established by the Constitution'. It is then and forever more, an illegitimately governing foreign entity, incapable of claiming the protections of the Constitution it is ignoring.

Surely if it can be said that we the people possess the right to consent to be governed we have also retained the right to rescind that consent.