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

[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.

It says that since X is true, the right of the people shall not be infringed.

And since it doesn't restrict its effect to only Congress, that means NO GOVT in the U.S. can infringe the right: Not Federal, not state, not local.

Note that the 1st amendment DOES restrict its effect to only Congress. The 1st deliberately did not apply itself to states or local govts. (The 14th amendment later changed this.)

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

 

[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?

Yeah? So? The COTUS is timeless.

You're the third fucking idiot who has said this and it really disgusts me that there are enough maggots in the world that three whole people can be this fucking stupid.

Gee, the constitution is still in effect? Who the fuck would have ever thought that? I thought it was like those manufacturers coupons that expire after a couple months. NO SHIT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EFFECT, DUMBASS! Morons like you really need to be round up and slaughtered for agricultural purposes. That's all you're fucking good for when you're this goddamned stupid. Puree the bodies and feed them to chicken and other livestock. Because the average farm animal has more inherent worth as dinner than you have in your entire existence.

But the OP doesn't accuse anyone of conflicting with the constitution. No, it accuses them of conflicting with a court case. A 141 year old court case. So tell me, what's one court case versus another, eh? What makes a 141 year old court case that was about BOR incorporation upon the states so god damned important that a justice in the 21st century is not entitled to have a dissenting opinion in a case about 2A rights in DC? I'll tell you what: Not a goddamned thing. But stupidity gives you a raging hard-on so you gotta jizz sometime. And that's how we get threads like this.

Oh, and since you're so goddamned ignorant, the Heller decision stated that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right. We won, dumbass. We fucking won! You're bitching and complaining about the fact that we fucking won! How goddamned stupid do you have to fucking be!?!?!?!

 

[Dr Grump]

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."

It's not inalienable.

 

[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.

You're the third fucking idiot who has said this and it really disgusts me that there are enough maggots in the world that three whole people can be this fucking stupid.

Gee, the constitution is still in effect? Who the fuck would have ever thought that? I thought it was like those manufacturers coupons that expire after a couple months. NO SHIT THE CONSTITUTION IS STILL IN EFFECT, DUMBASS! Morons like you really need to be round up and slaughtered for agricultural purposes. That's all you're fucking good for when you're this goddamned stupid. Puree the bodies and feed them to chicken and other livestock. Because the average farm animal has more inherent worth as dinner than you have in your entire existence.

But the OP doesn't accuse anyone of conflicting with the constitution. No, it accuses them of conflicting with a court case. A 141 year old court case. So tell me, what's one court case versus another, eh? What makes a 141 year old court case that was about BOR incorporation upon the states so god damned important that a justice in the 21st century is not entitled to have a dissenting opinion in a case about 2A rights in DC? I'll tell you what: Not a goddamned thing. But stupidity gives you a raging hard-on so you gotta jizz sometime. And that's how we get threads like this.

Oh, and since you're so goddamned ignorant, the Heller decision stated that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right. We won, dumbass. We fucking won! You're bitching and complaining about the fact that we fucking won! How goddamned stupid do you have to fucking be!?!?!?!

The only stupid person in this discussion is YOU. You somehow think that the COTUS is about collective rights. Since when does a government need to give itself the ability to maintain weapons? They fucking MAKE the weapons you ignorant twat. The COTUS specifically laid out those INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that government can't fuck with. That's all it does. I understand how that bugs the shit out of a murdering progressive POS such as yourself. It just irritates the hell out of you that those pesky peons you so despise can defend themselves from the likes of you.

Too fucking bad. The Founders were smarter than YOU.

 

[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

Is THIS your FIRST time reading Heller ??

Heller has been law since 2008.

Have you been living under a rock since 2007 ?!

NINE YEARS ?!

I am merely pointing out how CORRUPT-INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST - the dissenters were. But their opinion could become the "law of the land" if Hillary wins.


.

 

[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.


.

*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?

yes, indeed.

These corrupt scumbags are going to amend the Constitution and somehow get away with claiming that FREE PEOPLE do not have a right to defend their lives.


.

 

[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?

yes, indeed.

These corrupt scumbags are going to amend the Constitution and somehow get away with claiming that FREE PEOPLE do not have a right to defend their lives.


.

Contumacious
As CCJones pointed out, they will bow to court and public consensus that the 2nd Amendment stands. As a historic part of the Constitution this can only be thrown out by throwing out the entire document so there is no need to amend what is completely ignored anyway. ( Like throwing out the Bible that nobody dares to amend, except Thomas Jefferson and Jehovahs Witnesses, but everyone sticks to KJV anyway.)

What opponents MIGHT do is continue whittling away at individual rights by trumping up the authority of govt to investigate someone's mental health status, where that can get someone barred from gun ownership .
With stripping someone of legal defense and right to petition in court pro se, I know a prominent judicial activist in Houston who got declared a vexatious litigant with absolutely NO examination by any licensed physician, but just a court argument and order issued by political opponents to block her First Amendment right to file suits unless they were approved in advance!

So if this can happen through courts, so could someone's legal and mental competence to bear arms be decided politically by courts.

I saw it happen to a friend who was using " legal action in court" to try to defend her property that was seized by legal abuse. If that can be taken away by simply declaring someone incompetent in court, without any medical examination or proof, what else can be taken away?

 

[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

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.

wrong again , as usual

The dissenting scumbags claim that the 2A provided Congress the authority to regulate firearms


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

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.

In this dissent I shall first explain why our decision in Miller was faithful to the text of the Second Amendment and the purposes revealed in its drafting history. I shall then comment on the postratification history of the Amendment, which makes abundantly clear that the Amendment should not be interpreted as limiting the authority of Congress to regulate the use or possession of firearms for purely civilian purposes.


.

 

[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"


.

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."

Sad but true.

And the "justices' take advantage of that ignorance to stick it to all of us.


.

 

[Contumacious]

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

Warning: ridiculous rightwing demagogue exhibits his ignorance and stupidity.

Here is one of your "impartial and neutral" idols endorsing Hillary:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked trash about Donald Trump in an interview. Should she have?

.

 

[Contumacious]

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-cant-image-trump-win
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 'Can't Imagine' Trump as President, Says She Wants to See Citizens United and Heller Overturned by Liberal SCOTUS

The liberal justice speaks with The New York Times.

.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

It says that since X is true, the right of the people shall not be infringed.

And since it doesn't restrict its effect to only Congress, that means NO GOVT in the U.S. can infringe the right: Not Federal, not state, not local.

Note that the 1st amendment DOES restrict its effect to only Congress. The 1st deliberately did not apply itself to states or local govts. (The 14th amendment later changed this.)

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

I agree with you 1000%. We are on the same page.


.