Supreme Court details

[dav1d]

I found this document to be interesting:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/jps speech(dc)_10-15-2012.pdf

The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 2A has some caveats, the devil is in the details. According to the document by Justice Stevens, it is still legal for the Federal government or our State government to impose regulations such as restrictions on the types of firearms we may own, permission to carry concealed, who may possess a firearm, and establishments of gun free zones.

I guess we just have to find another state more aligned with our views.

 

[MDFF2008]

No right is absolute.

 

[6-Pack]

No right is absolute.

I agree, but our right is expressed as "shall not be infringed"

 

[bpSchoch]

You also have to look at US v. Miller (1939) and quoted by DC V. Heller (2008) and Printz v. US (1997)

Miller basically said that because a sawed off shotgun was not a weapon used common defense (is not commonly used by a militia/military) that it was unlawful.

DC V.Heller
"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

A lot of anti's use to prove their point but it doesn't

Printz v. US (1997)
Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

This means that weapons shown to be 'ordinary military equipment' were guaranteed.

Of course later we had the additional 'individual right' confirmed by the supreme court.

-------------------------
I've been talking to constitutional scholars and our key here is that they can't reject weapons shown to be 'ordinary military equipment' and in common use but can for the odd ball stuff.

 

[Markp]

No right is absolute.

Abortion seems to be.

 

[FrankZ]

Abortion seems to be.

Really?

Seriously?

Same tactic as those who are anti-2A, divert it to some other hot topic issue.

 

[Jaybeez]

No right is absolute.

I disagree.

Yelling fire in a crowded theater is a good idea, especially when it happens to be crowded and on fire. theaters must sometimes catch fire, otherwise building codes wouldn't require concrete and steel construction, fire alarms and sprinklers, and emergency lighting and fire exits.

If you yell "fire" and there is no fire, there will be consequences, but you are still free to yell to your hearts content, and bring those consequences upon yourself.


the second amendment workable the same way, keep and bear in an improper manner, and incur consequences. But just because the security of the free state isn't threatened right at this moment, doesn't mean we need to do away with the ability to yell "fire", just in case.

 

[Docster]

I agree, but our right is expressed as "shall not be infringed"

Yes, but it also says, "A well regulated militia"......

So, playing devil's advocate, how are we, as citizen gun owners, regulating ourselves as a militia? I suspect that is a component of what the anti's want to know as well. No right is absolute.

Please understand this--I am an STRONG advocate of 2A; I bring this up for rational debate, not venom and flames. I also agree that in the present and recent past, admitting to anything reasonable is viewed as a sign of weakness by both sides, hence the extremism from both sides and the lack of civil and unemotional debate.

 

[bpSchoch]

Rights are absolute. I could quote you a ton of supreme court case law.

What the courts are deciding is exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

Also Blacks law on Militia:

Milltla . The body of citizens in a state, en-rolled for discipline as a military force, but not en-gaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

BTW it's not because there is a law preventing you from yelling fire falsely in a theatre. It's because you are trespassing on others rights who are watching the feature. e.g. interrupting their viewing pleasure, creating chaos and people getting potentially injured, actual damages from the theater owner due to the disruption of the feature etc. They are the ones who can bring up a suit against you.

 

[rbird7282]

Rights are absolute. I could quote you a ton of supreme court case law.

What the courts are deciding is exactly what the 2nd amendment means.

Also Blacks law on Militia:

Milltla . The body of citizens in a state, en-rolled for discipline as a military force, but not en-gaged in actual service except in emergencies, as distinguished from regular troops or a standing army.

BTW it's not because there is a law preventing you from yelling fire falsely in a theatre. It's because you are trespassing on others rights who are watching the feature. e.g. interrupting their viewing pleasure, creating chaos and people getting potentially injured, actual damages from the theater owner due to the disruption of the feature etc. They are the ones who can bring up a suit against you.

The problem is the courts are not there to interpret the law. They are only there to uphold the law. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Supreme court can interpret the law. That hasn't stopped them from doing so however.....

 

[TapRackBang]

Yes, but it also says, "A well regulated militia"......

I see that all the time from "antis". It's so easy to refute:

"... the right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Not the right of the militia.
Not the right of the government.
Not the right of the army.
Not the right of the police.

The right of The People.

 

[Brychan]

The 2 A is absolute, the politicians and courts have corrupted the true meaning. The founders tried to state in it in terms everyone could understand, but as with everything written it can be twisted as nothing is fool proof. A new fool always comes along. With no ifs, ands, buts, maybes or exceptions it means every person has the right to be armed to defend themselves, family and country.

 

[kohburn]

Yes, but it also says, "A well regulated militia"......

simple misunderstanding of what regulated means

not trained, not equipped, but regulated or CONTROLLED

how do you control or restrict the power of a militia force that is given orders by the government? simple

"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


you have to read the ammendment in the context of what it is ammending

 

[dav1d]

There are so many ways different people can read the 2A it's tiring to keep arguing with the antis. But I feel like getting on the soap box, so here I go...

The Bill of Rights limits the government's authority over its citizens. In the case of the 2A, the gov must allow the keeping of arms for the purpose of creating a non-professional military force because such a force is necessary to secure the liberties of its citizens. The military force must also be under some rule of law (common law *I suppose) so that it isn't just a band of thugs.*

I doubt the framers wanted a non-professional military force because they were looking for amature soldiers. Rather, a pro-soldier is bank-rolled by some government (whether foreign or domestic) and can be influenced or otherwise coerced to act against freedom.

Since the framers were asking for a military force, it stands to reason that the arms you should keep be of military grade. I haven't heard that the original 13 states only allowed citizens to keep and bear bows and arrows while the Continental Army gets to have muskets. However, antis often bring up the straw man: "should u keep a nuclear bomb then?" The answer is obviously "no" but I don't believe this paradox to signify that the *2A is flawed in some way as many antis would say, so that they have a reason to reinterpret the 2A.

The 2A says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of securing a free State. So, that should be the litmus test for the type of arms we should bear. Would *allowing anyone to own a nuclear bomb help secure freedom or impede it? That answer should be obvious. How about owning a 30 round magazine? To us, it's obvious. To people who's only experience with a gun is watching Rambo, the answer is also obvious, but in the other direction. Unfortunately, knowledge of firearms isn't a prerequisite for voting. I don't think we can ever win this debate out right. The answer to what we should ban is so subjective. For example, I don't think SBRs, full auto triggers, or suppressors should be in a different class, but a majority of people do.*

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but I believe the 2A is written in plain English. I am preaching to the choir, I know. But you're the only sensible people who will listen.*

 

[jonnyl]

...

The 2A says that the right to keep and bear arms is for the purpose of securing a free State. ...

I think that is a little limiting. That would imply that is the only reason people should have the right to bear arms. I think there are many reasons people need the right to bear arms. Securing a free state is one of those reasons, and the key reason they put it in the BoR.

I think they worded it the way it is specifically to say: An armed citizenry is critical to a free state, because of that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just a little broader way of looking at it.

 

[Inigoes]

I found this document to be interesting:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/speeches/jps speech(dc)_10-15-2012.pdf

What I do not like is the SCOTUS interpretation of "common use by law-abiding people" instead of "common use by the military".

That can sway the tide away from us.

 

[dav1d]

I agree wholeheartedly bro.