Warning: Four SCOTUS 'justices" concluded Right to Bear Arms is a NEW Right

[Contumacious]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

 

[Obiwan]

Sounds like Hillary needs to understand that the right to disarm the population is "negotiable"..

And I ain't negotiating..

 

[Agit8r]

"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
-- John Adams; 'A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America'

 

[Contumacious]

Sounds like Hillary needs to understand that the right to disarm the population is "negotiable"..

And I ain't negotiating..

Even Alexander Hamilton concluded that the 2A grants NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY


"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."

 

[SwimExpert]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

 

[Vigilante]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

And what YEAR did our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS come from asshole?

 

[SwimExpert]

And what YEAR did our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS come from asshole?

That question has absolutely no relevance to my post. Your attempt at a nonsequitor is rejected and dismissed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sounds like Hillary needs to understand that the right to disarm the population is "negotiable"..

And I ain't negotiating..

Dear Contumacious and Obiwan
I can envision Constitutional conferences between various party leaders and members
to iron out which parties believe in which political rights:
right to life vs right to health care
right to free market vs right to choice
right to bear arms
right to vote
right to marriage
etc.

If people cannot agree on political beliefs, why not agree to separate by party
and recognize these beliefs locally by choice?

We can agree what principles to enforce on a national level for everyone,
and where we disagree, why can't we settle those issues locally, at whatever level people
can reach a consensus, and not push it further than that.


Whatever issue people have with the 2nd Amendment, why not resolve that issue
without trying to change this law itself. Obviously people do not agree to change this law,
so instead of fighting that issue, why not address the real issues like mental illness and screening
and quit trying to force beliefs of one party over another. Can we agree to stop abusing govt to
force people to change their beliefs?

 

[Contumacious]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

Dingle Berry

You do realize that the Constitution (1787) has NOT been amended.


You do realize that SCOTUS has NO authority to AMEND the Constitution.


.

 

[SwimExpert]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

Dingle Berry

You do realize that the Constitution (1787) has NOT been amended.


You do realize that SCOTUS has NO authority to AMEND the Constitution.


.

*facepalm*

Come back when you learn how to cook something other than word salad.

 

[bripat9643]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

So? Marbury vs Madison was in 1803. Is that still in force?

 

[Contumacious]

Sounds like Hillary needs to understand that the right to disarm the population is "negotiable"..

And I ain't negotiating..

Dear Contumacious and Obiwan
I can envision Constitutional conferences between various party leaders and members
to iron out which parties believe in which political rights:
right to life vs right to health care
right to free market vs right to choice
right to bear arms
right to vote
right to marriage
etc.

If people cannot agree on political beliefs, why not agree to separate by party
and recognize these beliefs locally by choice?

We can agree what principles to enforce on a national level for everyone,
and where we disagree, why can't we settle those issues locally, at whatever level people
can reach a consensus, and not push it further than that.


Whatever issue people have with the 2nd Amendment, why not resolve that issue
without trying to change this law itself. Obviously people do not agree to change this law,
so instead of fighting that issue, why not address the real issues like mental illness and screening
and quit trying to force beliefs of one party over another. Can we agree to stop abusing govt to
force people to change their beliefs?

We are dealing with intellectually dishonest - CORRUPT - individuals - the "justices - could have suggested that the States amend the Constitution instead of lying about the right to bear arms being a "new right"


.

 

[yiostheoy]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

Is THIS your FIRST time reading Heller ??

Heller has been law since 2008.

Have you been living under a rock since 2007 ?!

NINE YEARS ?!

 

[emilynghiem]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

Dingle Berry

You do realize that the Constitution (1787) has NOT been amended.


You do realize that SCOTUS has NO authority to AMEND the Constitution.


.

*facepalm*

Come back when you learn how to cook something other than word salad.

Dear SwimExpert
In short, unlike liberal interpretations that accept judges legislating from the bench, Constitutionalists who respect stricter separations of powers and limits on judiciary power reserve the right to make laws to the legislative branch, not the judiciary. Is that clear?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

Wrong again, as usual.

The dissenting opinions in Heller held that the Second Amendment right was a collective, not individual, right.

Their position was that the interpretation was new, recognizing an individual right, not that the right itself was ‘new.’

And all appointments to the Supreme Court made by Clinton will have no desire or motive whatsoever to overturn Heller, which they consider settled, accepted case law:

“Heller is unlikely to be overturned. There are several high-profile cases that are likely to be reversed by a liberal Supreme Court, such as Citizens United and Shelby County. Heller, however, is not one of them. While there is no doubt that several of the justices believe Heller was wrongly decided, they have little reason to overturn the decision and every reason to maintain it.

Heller was a narrow decision that did not fundamentally reshape America’s regime of gun laws. The Court held that individuals have a right to have handguns in their homes. But only two cities, Washington and Chicago, and no states, had laws prohibiting handgun possession. (Chicago allowed residents to have long guns for self-defense.) In the eight years since Heller, there have been several hundred lawsuits challenging nearly every type of gun law on the books. Only a few laws, however, have been invalidated.

Even the justices who dissented in Heller now understand that the decision has not proved to be a roadblock to effective gun laws. All the laws at the top of the gun-control agenda—universal background checks, assault-weapons bans, and restrictions on high-capacity magazines—have all survived judicial scrutiny since Heller. Why would justices favorable to gun control vote to overturn a case that doesn’t actually stop lawmakers from regulating guns?”

A Liberal Supreme Court Will Not Impact Gun Laws

Why indeed.

 

[westwall]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290)

Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting.


The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.” Ante, at 64. Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, I fear that the District’s policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.39

Those 4 politicians in black robes completely abandoned


United States v. Cruikshank
92 U.S. 542 (1875)

The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This 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, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government


In the Cruikshank case the dissent DID NOT dispute that WE THE PEOPLE have a right to bear arms for a lawful purpose


So folks , if Hillary wins she will nominate a "justice" who agree that we do not have a right to bear arms for a lawful
purpose


You have been warned

You realize you're citing a case from 1875, right?

Yeah? So? The COTUS is timeless.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sounds like Hillary needs to understand that the right to disarm the population is "negotiable"..

And I ain't negotiating..

Dear Contumacious and Obiwan
I can envision Constitutional conferences between various party leaders and members
to iron out which parties believe in which political rights:
right to life vs right to health care
right to free market vs right to choice
right to bear arms
right to vote
right to marriage
etc.

If people cannot agree on political beliefs, why not agree to separate by party
and recognize these beliefs locally by choice?

We can agree what principles to enforce on a national level for everyone,
and where we disagree, why can't we settle those issues locally, at whatever level people
can reach a consensus, and not push it further than that.


Whatever issue people have with the 2nd Amendment, why not resolve that issue
without trying to change this law itself. Obviously people do not agree to change this law,
so instead of fighting that issue, why not address the real issues like mental illness and screening
and quit trying to force beliefs of one party over another. Can we agree to stop abusing govt to
force people to change their beliefs?

We are dealing with intellectually dishonest - CORRUPT - individuals - the "justices - could have suggested that the States amend the Constitution instead of lying about the right to bear arms being a "new right"


.

We are dealing with ppl who don't recognize this right at all as something inalienable, but arbitrary.

So to take Clinton's words out of context, and to a whole new level, "what difference does it make."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Warning: Four SCOTUS 'justices" concluded Right to Bear Arms is a NEW Right"

Warning: ridiculous rightwing demagogue exhibits his ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Abatis]

Cruikshank destroys all permutations of the "collective right" interpretation.

SCOTUS in Cruikshank is discussing the right to arms of two Freemen -- former slaves, then citizens in 1873 Louisiana. These Freemen were disarmed, kidnapped and lynched by Cruikshank et al (see Colfax Massacre).

This "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose" as Cruikshank's indictment characterized it, (and SCOTUS quoted without comment or correction), was exercised by the Freemen for private purpose, that of personal self-defense, in public, from the KKK / Night Riders.

This "right of bearing arms for lawful purpose" as Cruikshank's indictment characterized it, was not being exercised for the purpose of the preservation or maintenance of the Louisiana state militia -- the Louisiana state militia was at that time disbanded by Congress for its brutal enforcement of state Black Codes. Neither could the two Freemen ever be considered members of the state militia even if there was one to join; only White citizens were allowed to serve.

It is indisputable that SCOTUS recognized an individual right to bear arms for private use, that of personal, self-defense in public, without permit or permission from federal, state or local government, without any regard to the citizen's militia enrollment status and no need for the arm or its use to be shown to be directly related to the preservation or maintenance of the militia.

By describing in 2008 as "new", what the Court plainly recognized 132 years before, the Heller dissenters only demonstrate their ability to ignore the Constitution and the Court's precedent in service to an anti-constitutional, anti-liberty political agenda.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government

Nowhere does the 2nd amendment mention Congress.

The 2nd amendment restricted all governments in the U.S., from the day it was ratified, and still does today.