and only recently supressed under mis-application of a what was a bad ruling to begin with
In what legal sense was it a "bad ruling"? Perhaps you just meant it was a ruling with which you disagreed.
the Fifth Circuit Court, under which I fall, has ruled it a right
I'll play your game: That was a "bad ruling."
but certainly DID note it as a right in Dred Scott.
Let's alert the readers to this decision, which you hold in such reverence. The Dred Scott case was one in which the court decided, much to the relief of slaveowners everywhere, that "negroes" were not U.S. citizens. In the decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote:
"It would give to
persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased...to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went. And all of this would be done in the face of the subject race of the same color, both free and slaves, and inevitably producing discontent and insubordination among them, and endangering the peace and safety of the State."
What Chief Justice Taney was attempting to visit upon the reader was the horrors of granting blacks citizenship. But note that he said "persons of the negro race", not "all persons of the negro race." So even if one were to consider this reference to be a valid one, it still does not show that the Supreme Court felt that each and every individual citizen had a right to keep and bear arms.
Fortunately, Dred Scott was overruled by constitutional amendment after the war. Yet even if it were still good law, it was not a Second Amendment case; moreover, the reference was obiter dictum (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding), not law. It is an irrelevancy.
Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"?
Aside: Why do your postings, giving few specific quotes & citations, get modded up as "informative?"
Sounds like a problem with your reading comprehension, not my postings.
Um, no, it does nothing of the kind. If you'd bothered to read the decision [findlaw.com], you'd know better.
I read the decision long before posting and came away with a different interpretation than did you. Others also interpreted the decision the same way that I did.
The parent post (by an AC) is truly bizarre. You have to wonder what kind of twisted thoughts were running through his head when he composed that. I thought the *BSD-is-dying guy was wacko, but this one takes the cake.
If you are true to your word and you are ending the discussion, then I shall relish having the last word.
How exactly do you preserve freedom when you make the definition of freedom subject to the whims of society?
No one suggested redefining freedom. You interpret the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to situations undreamt of at the time it was created.
Did the founding fathers intend for you to have freedom of speech on the radio, TV and Internet?
Althought they did not know about radio, TV, and the Internet, there was no caveat stating a specific purpose for the First Amendment. They did not start the First Amendment off with "A well regulated newspaper industry, being necessary for.... The Second Amendment has just such a stipulation. Had the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be as broad ranging in scope as the First, it would have been worded something like:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the people to keep and bear arms."
Instead, they spelled out the specific purpose of the second amendment; to facilitate a well-regulated militia. Nothing else. Not so that you can shoot someone who tries to steal your lawnmower. Not to display in glass cases. Solely to enable the citizenry to form a well-regulated militia.
This militia blather is a pointless sidetrack to the core issue.
It's the entire justification for the Second Amendment. It starts off with "A well regulated milita..." That hardly sounds like it's a pointless side issue.
Do citizens have any recourse to defending themselves from the tyranny of government when that government has the force of arms to impose its will on the citizens?
Hint: Your rifle/shotgun/handgun won't do squat against a tank, missile, or helicopter gunship. Pretending that you could stand up to the might of the U.S. military using nothing but conventional firearms is pure fantasy.
By no means does this further dilute the Court's premise that "the people" refers to a part of the national community, and does not refer to state-level organizations, such as militias, which is how the pro-gun control crowd interprets the concept of "militia" in the Second Amendment.
It is easily argued that individuals that comprise the "well-regulated militia" are that part of the national community to which the court referred. Let us not forget the portion of the Second Amendment which explains its existence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Had the framers of the Constitution intended for every adult in the U.S. to be guaranteed a right to own firearms, they would have said so without such caveats.
While I feel that the NJ law being discussed is ultimately flawed, I do not believe that the Constitution prohibits such a law. I believe that states do have the right to regulate firearm ownership insofar as it does not prevent the effective formation of a "well regulated militia" within each state.
Sorry I called you an ignoramus. That was uncalled for. Your "fuck you" was well-deserved.
You are a decent fellow and I appreciate you coming clean on that one.
You called me an "ignoramous", claimed I was "anti-freedom", and described what I presented as "half-assed, poorly-researched drivel." Gee, it's a real mystery why I took offense, isn't it?
Sure it does. Page 265 [guncite.com], first paragraph, fourth sentence.
From that document:
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
(emphasis added)
The point of that statement was to say who is excluded from "the people", not who was included. In this case, Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was excluded from that "class of persons" because he was a citizen and resident of Mexico.
The sentence refers to "a class of persons" rather than "all persons." That's an important difference. If one were to interpret "the people" as being all U.S. citizens, then laws that prevented convicted, violent felons, the mentally unstable, and mentally retarded people from getting guns would be unconstitutional.
You might have read it, but you obviously didn't understand it.
It appears that you were the one confused by it. You seem to miss the subtleties of language and choose to ignore disclaimers like "this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive" while misinterpreting phrases like "a class of persons" as "all persons."
Or you could go right to the words of the people who wrote the Constitution and learn exactly what the amendments mean and stop this "interpret" bullshit.
This "interpret 'bullshit'" (as you so elogquently call it) is what legal scholars and courts have done for over two centuries. Try reading the Supreme Court decisions and look at the opinions which explain the reasoning. They don't just flip coins or decide things on whims.
This isn't the 1770s. States don't train people in militias. No one expects a bunch of farmers with muskets to defend our country to to keep in check a government gone awry. The Constitution is a living document. It has to be interpreted in light of social and technological changes. Did the founding fathers intend for me to be able to own a shoulder-fired SAM? Did they intend for me to be able to brandis an Uzi in a shopping mall?
The President of the NRA is Charlton Heston. He's over 76 years old and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Is he your definition of the "able-bodied" man that was intended to serve in a "well-regulated militia"? Maybe he doesn't have a right to own a gun...
Yeah, that must be it. Why would I be pissed at someone for calling me an "ignoramus", "anti-freedom", or for saying that what I presented was "half-assed, poorly-researched drivel"?
You're probably used to people talking that way to you, so you were surprised that others would be offended by it.
Only the prosecution was there. That's why they say "not within judicial notice" in the decision:
LOL! That's not what "judicial notice" means. If something is given "judicial notice", it means that the courts accept it as factual. For instance, radar speed measuring guns have received "judicial notice" in most states. This means that the courts simply accept as fact the speed shown -- unless the defendant can show that the gun was not calibrated, that it was improperly used, etc. The prosecution does not have to explain radar theory to the judge every time a speeding trial is held.
It's NOT a "settled issue," like the anti-rights people like to claim.
Let's cut the name calling ("anti-rights"). I own a rifle, shotgun, and two handguns, so don't try to paint me as some kind of anti-gun nut. That I disagree with your preferred interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that I am "anti-rights." In fact, I am horrified at the curtailment of rights since 9/11 and the way that Bush and the Justice Department are using 9/11 as a way to take away our rights against unreasonable search and siezure. I am appalled at the way that they are incarcerating people without charging them with crimes and without giving them access to legal counsel. So please don't tell me that I am "anti-rights."
If the issue is not settled, why do these laws get passed and the NRA just whines? You would think that they would fight these laws in the Supreme Court if the laws were unconstitutional, yet they typically do not.
So tell me, good sir, how "the people" mentioned in the second amendment differ from "the people" mentioned in the first?
Finally, an easy question. The Second Amendment states a purpose for its existence -- the establishment and maintenance of a well-regulated militia. That purpose does not require unlimited access to weapons of all types by all citizens.
The US Dept. of Justice... ruled that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.
The Justice Department does not rule in legal cases. Ashcroft, probably the most right-wing extremist ever to hold the position of Attorney General (the same guy who paid $8,000 of your tax dollars to buy a dress to cover the breasts of a statue) made that claim, reversing the position held by the Justice Department for the last 40 years. Keep in mind that he is the same one that thought he could lock people away without access to attorneys and without charging them with crimes. The courts straightened him out on that one and I expect that they will correct him about this, too.
You commit a common fallacy in believing the Constitution must specifically grant an individual a right before said individual can exercise that right.
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that there are "rights" which are not spelled out by the Constitution which the states must respect. Untrue. If the state wishes to pass a law which limits what its residents can do, it has a right to do so - unless that law runs contrary to Federal law.
I alwasy[sic] find it interesting when the anti-freedom people spew their half-assed, poorly-researched drivel as if they were actually knowledgeable on the subject.
Go fuck yourself. You are yet another one of the right-wing, lunatic-fringe nuts who won't let facts sway his opinion. You quote the parts of the law that you like and ignore those that run contrary to your views of what your rights should be.
In your haste to make yourself look like an ignoramus
Again, go fuck yourself.
you failed to mention US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), in which the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not some imagined "militia" under the guise of government.
I've read the case you cited and it does not indicate that gun ownership is an individual right.
but the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right to arms as an individual right in every Second Amendment case they've heard.
You don't read very well, do you? In the 1886 Presser ruling, The Supreme Court specifically ruled just the other way. They ruled that Illinois' restriction on the bearing of firearms was Constititutional and that the Second Amendment applied to state militias, not all citizens. They said:
The plaintiff in error insists that the act of congress requires absolutely all able-bodied citizens of the state, between certain ages, to be enrolled in the militia
If you are going to spew propaganda, the least you can do is check your facts first.
I'm sick of you, your name-calling, insults, and other bullshit. I did far more research than you, did a better job of checking my facts, and presented multiple examples of court decisions that supported my position. As to your interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc., I could not care less.
as far as the cases you cited I looked them up on the internet. That is not exactly what the court said. In both cases a sawed off shotgun was the case.
First, I don't know where "both" came from when I cited three cases:
1886: Presser vs. Illinois 1939: United States vs. Miller. 1976: United States v. Warin,
Presser was a case involving a company of 400 armed men riding through the City of Chicago brandishing swords and rifles. Warin was a case involving a submachine gun. Only Miller involved a sawed off shotgun.
They found a sawed off shotgun was not needed for a state militia (and thier language strongly implied that if it were the law would have been unconstitutional) and therefore fell into states right.
The language implied that the state could not universally ban a weapon needed by a state militia. But the court did not state that the each and every citizen of the state must be legally permitted to keep and bear those weapons or that each person be allowed to be a part of said state militia.
Every able bodied person WAS the militia - they felt standing armies were anathema to a democracy or republic.
Including convicted felons?
But it was not every person. It was every able-bodied male. So does that mean that a state has a legal right to prevent women from owning guns? Sounds that way if we want to be strict constructionists.
I read it. So who is David M. Putzolu (the author)? Going back to the home page, it's a frighteningly right-wing, conspiracy theory page. It hits all the major conspiracy theories as well as engaging in no small amount of political slander. We have "WACO -- Who Fired First?", "Cocaine use in the White House", and a piece in which the writer theorizes that Ron Brown's plane was sabotaged as some kind of White House plot to cover up something related to campaign finance (to name just a few).
When they agree with you on the gun issue, they're the finest legal minds. When they rule otherwise, hmmm, say on a national election issue, they're a bunch of right-wing activists.
While there have been some questionable decisions by the Supreme Court, citing multiple rulings that stretch back 115+ years takes those out of the equation.
Yes, because we all know that only the people in power have the right to interpret public law and policy.
Having a law degree does not put you "in power."
When some random person on Slashdot starts offering up his opinions on the law, without even presenting the reasoning behind those opinions, it's fairly reasonable to ask what his credentials are.
While you may feel that the Constitution is easily understood by someone in grade school, countless hours have been spent by lawyers, judges, and legal scholars pondering its subtleties.
Pray tell, in what state do you hold membership in the bar?
I am not an lawyer. Of courst, that is irrelevent as I was citing Supreme Court decisions to bolster my argument while the person was rendering his own interpretation of the Constitution ("Personally I say it is an individual right along with the rest of the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned I think it is full of shit.").
When, in a debate on Constitutional law, you assert your own opinions, over and above the opinions of the Supreme Court, you better have some very strong legal credentials.
And perhaps YOU should read some law and look at some STATE Constitutions.
State constitutions do not overrule the Constitution of the United States. Are you stating that New Jersey's new law will run afoul of its state Constitution? If so, quote the passage or cite N.J. court cases that support your view. Don't just make wild sweeping statements that vaguely accuse me of ignorance.
The STATE militia and the UNREGULATED milita (every able bodied male age 18-45).
I don't see the point of your definitions. Are you saying that everyone over the age of 45 who is not in a state militia has no gun ownership rights? Or are you saying that "unregulated" militias can do whatever they want and that no state has a right to limit their actions?
You sound a classical lawyer that belives the state has power to do whatever it wants. You are part of the problem.
States have powers to enact any law which is constitutional and which does not run counter to federal laws. For example, California can pass laws requiring that cars sold there produce less pollution than the federally-mandated maximums. But they cannot pass laws which allow cars to exceed the pollution limits put in place at the federal level.
As I pointed out in my original posting:
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in
Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms.
There it is in black and white: states can regulate firearms as they see fit. End of story.
As to the "you are part of the problem" remark, try debating logically instead of simply attacking me because you don't like what I'm saying.
That's why we have the Supreme Court, so that we will have some of the finest legal minds making the interpretation.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned I think it is full of shit.
It's not "the" Supreme Court in the sense of one group of Justices. I cited rulings that strethed over a 90 year period and all of those Justices ruled against the concept of the Second Amendment guaranteeing individual gun ownership rights.
Personally I say it is an individual right along with the rest of the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution.
Learned legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices disagree. What is your background and what law degrees do you hold?
They are creating law instead of making sure it is Constitutional these days.
So, do you include 1886, 1939, and 1976 as "these days"? Because those are the dates of the rulings that I cited. I find it hard to view 115-plus years ago as "these days."
The Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual's right to gun ownership. The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment. Specifically, these are militias that are regulated by the federal and state governments. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. The Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting interstate sales of sawed-off shotguns on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times the courts have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment:
In the 1976 case of United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
If the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to unregulated gun ownership, the NRA would be challenging laws like this one and The Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. That is not happening because the NRA knows that they would lose any such challenge. That's why they spend their time and money lobbying (threatening, rewarding, and bribing) Congress to limit gun legislation. If you want to make claims about the Constitution, do some case law research before you do.
The scientific theories of the big bang and evolution are based on logic, observations, and measurements rather than a blind faith in a book written by a bunch of sheep herders 2,000 years ago. Things like background radiation, the red shift, a rich fossil record, and carbon dating all support those theories.
You are living proof that we need a moment of science rather than a moment of silence in schools.
Slashdot Mirror
Vague claim with no attribution.
and only recently supressed under mis-application of a what was a bad ruling to begin with
In what legal sense was it a "bad ruling"? Perhaps you just meant it was a ruling with which you disagreed.
the Fifth Circuit Court, under which I fall, has ruled it a right
I'll play your game: That was a "bad ruling."
but certainly DID note it as a right in Dred Scott.
Let's alert the readers to this decision, which you hold in such reverence. The Dred Scott case was one in which the court decided, much to the relief of slaveowners everywhere, that "negroes" were not U.S. citizens. In the decision, Chief Justice Taney wrote:
What Chief Justice Taney was attempting to visit upon the reader was the horrors of granting blacks citizenship. But note that he said "persons of the negro race", not "all persons of the negro race." So even if one were to consider this reference to be a valid one, it still does not show that the Supreme Court felt that each and every individual citizen had a right to keep and bear arms.
Fortunately, Dred Scott was overruled by constitutional amendment after the war. Yet even if it were still good law, it was not a Second Amendment case; moreover, the reference was obiter dictum (an opinion voiced by a judge that has only incidental bearing on the case in question and is therefore not binding), not law. It is an irrelevancy.
Why do you feel that this decision denying "negroes" U.S. citizenship is not an example of a "bad ruling"?
Aside: Why do your postings, giving few specific quotes & citations, get modded up as "informative?"
Sounds like a problem with your reading comprehension, not my postings.
Um, no, it does nothing of the kind. If you'd bothered to read the decision [findlaw.com], you'd know better.
I read the decision long before posting and came away with a different interpretation than did you. Others also interpreted the decision the same way that I did.
If you seek to deny me what I cleary see as my right, I feel no pain at calling you "anti-rights."
Just because you believe something to be your "right" does not make it so. Consider the possiblity that you might simply be wrong.
Image a dozen "Beltway Snipers," all across the country, each going after those they perceive as too liberal. NOT a pretty picture.
But it would really illustrate the need for gun control legislation.
The parent post (by an AC) is truly bizarre. You have to wonder what kind of twisted thoughts were running through his head when he composed that. I thought the *BSD-is-dying guy was wacko, but this one takes the cake.
Great going guys! You Slashdotted Christmas.
If you are true to your word and you are ending the discussion, then I shall relish having the last word.
How exactly do you preserve freedom when you make the definition of freedom subject to the whims of society?
No one suggested redefining freedom. You interpret the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to situations undreamt of at the time it was created.
Did the founding fathers intend for you to have freedom of speech on the radio, TV and Internet?
Althought they did not know about radio, TV, and the Internet, there was no caveat stating a specific purpose for the First Amendment. They did not start the First Amendment off with "A well regulated newspaper industry, being necessary for.... The Second Amendment has just such a stipulation. Had the framers of the Constitution intended the Second Amendment to be as broad ranging in scope as the First, it would have been worded something like:
Instead, they spelled out the specific purpose of the second amendment; to facilitate a well-regulated militia. Nothing else. Not so that you can shoot someone who tries to steal your lawnmower. Not to display in glass cases. Solely to enable the citizenry to form a well-regulated militia.
This militia blather is a pointless sidetrack to the core issue.
It's the entire justification for the Second Amendment. It starts off with "A well regulated milita..." That hardly sounds like it's a pointless side issue.
Do citizens have any recourse to defending themselves from the tyranny of government when that government has the force of arms to impose its will on the citizens?
Hint: Your rifle/shotgun/handgun won't do squat against a tank, missile, or helicopter gunship. Pretending that you could stand up to the might of the U.S. military using nothing but conventional firearms is pure fantasy.
By no means does this further dilute the Court's premise that "the people" refers to a part of the national community, and does not refer to state-level organizations, such as militias, which is how the pro-gun control crowd interprets the concept of "militia" in the Second Amendment.
It is easily argued that individuals that comprise the "well-regulated militia" are that part of the national community to which the court referred. Let us not forget the portion of the Second Amendment which explains its existence: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." Had the framers of the Constitution intended for every adult in the U.S. to be guaranteed a right to own firearms, they would have said so without such caveats.
While I feel that the NJ law being discussed is ultimately flawed, I do not believe that the Constitution prohibits such a law. I believe that states do have the right to regulate firearm ownership insofar as it does not prevent the effective formation of a "well regulated militia" within each state.
Sorry I called you an ignoramus. That was uncalled for. Your "fuck you" was well-deserved.
You are a decent fellow and I appreciate you coming clean on that one.
You called me an "ignoramous", claimed I was "anti-freedom", and described what I presented as "half-assed, poorly-researched drivel." Gee, it's a real mystery why I took offense, isn't it?
Sure it does. Page 265 [guncite.com], first paragraph, fourth sentence.
From that document:
(emphasis added)
The point of that statement was to say who is excluded from "the people", not who was included. In this case, Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was excluded from that "class of persons" because he was a citizen and resident of Mexico.
The sentence refers to "a class of persons" rather than "all persons." That's an important difference. If one were to interpret "the people" as being all U.S. citizens, then laws that prevented convicted, violent felons, the mentally unstable, and mentally retarded people from getting guns would be unconstitutional.
You might have read it, but you obviously didn't understand it.
It appears that you were the one confused by it. You seem to miss the subtleties of language and choose to ignore disclaimers like "this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive" while misinterpreting phrases like "a class of persons" as "all persons."
Or you could go right to the words of the people who wrote the Constitution and learn exactly what the amendments mean and stop this "interpret" bullshit.
This "interpret 'bullshit'" (as you so elogquently call it) is what legal scholars and courts have done for over two centuries. Try reading the Supreme Court decisions and look at the opinions which explain the reasoning. They don't just flip coins or decide things on whims.
This isn't the 1770s. States don't train people in militias. No one expects a bunch of farmers with muskets to defend our country to to keep in check a government gone awry. The Constitution is a living document. It has to be interpreted in light of social and technological changes. Did the founding fathers intend for me to be able to own a shoulder-fired SAM? Did they intend for me to be able to brandis an Uzi in a shopping mall?
The President of the NRA is Charlton Heston. He's over 76 years old and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's. Is he your definition of the "able-bodied" man that was intended to serve in a "well-regulated militia"? Maybe he doesn't have a right to own a gun...
Hahaha, you're just pissed that you're wrong.
Yeah, that must be it. Why would I be pissed at someone for calling me an "ignoramus", "anti-freedom", or for saying that what I presented was "half-assed, poorly-researched drivel"?
You're probably used to people talking that way to you, so you were surprised that others would be offended by it.
Only the prosecution was there. That's why they say "not within judicial notice" in the decision:
LOL! That's not what "judicial notice" means. If something is given "judicial notice", it means that the courts accept it as factual. For instance, radar speed measuring guns have received "judicial notice" in most states. This means that the courts simply accept as fact the speed shown -- unless the defendant can show that the gun was not calibrated, that it was improperly used, etc. The prosecution does not have to explain radar theory to the judge every time a speeding trial is held.
It's NOT a "settled issue," like the anti-rights people like to claim.
Let's cut the name calling ("anti-rights"). I own a rifle, shotgun, and two handguns, so don't try to paint me as some kind of anti-gun nut. That I disagree with your preferred interpretation of the Second Amendment does not mean that I am "anti-rights." In fact, I am horrified at the curtailment of rights since 9/11 and the way that Bush and the Justice Department are using 9/11 as a way to take away our rights against unreasonable search and siezure. I am appalled at the way that they are incarcerating people without charging them with crimes and without giving them access to legal counsel. So please don't tell me that I am "anti-rights."
If the issue is not settled, why do these laws get passed and the NRA just whines? You would think that they would fight these laws in the Supreme Court if the laws were unconstitutional, yet they typically do not.
So tell me, good sir, how "the people" mentioned in the second amendment differ from "the people" mentioned in the first?
Finally, an easy question. The Second Amendment states a purpose for its existence -- the establishment and maintenance of a well-regulated militia. That purpose does not require unlimited access to weapons of all types by all citizens.
The US Dept. of Justice ... ruled that the 2nd Amendment does protect an individual right.
The Justice Department does not rule in legal cases. Ashcroft, probably the most right-wing extremist ever to hold the position of Attorney General (the same guy who paid $8,000 of your tax dollars to buy a dress to cover the breasts of a statue) made that claim, reversing the position held by the Justice Department for the last 40 years. Keep in mind that he is the same one that thought he could lock people away without access to attorneys and without charging them with crimes. The courts straightened him out on that one and I expect that they will correct him about this, too.
Why check? After all, he is spewing propaganda. :-)
When did court rulings become "propaganda"?
You seem to be of the mistaken opinion that there are "rights" which are not spelled out by the Constitution which the states must respect. Untrue. If the state wishes to pass a law which limits what its residents can do, it has a right to do so - unless that law runs contrary to Federal law.
I alwasy[sic] find it interesting when the anti-freedom people spew their half-assed, poorly-researched drivel as if they were actually knowledgeable on the subject.
Go fuck yourself. You are yet another one of the right-wing, lunatic-fringe nuts who won't let facts sway his opinion. You quote the parts of the law that you like and ignore those that run contrary to your views of what your rights should be.
In your haste to make yourself look like an ignoramus
Again, go fuck yourself.
you failed to mention US v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), in which the Supreme Court clearly indicated that the Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not some imagined "militia" under the guise of government.
I've read the case you cited and it does not indicate that gun ownership is an individual right.
but the Supreme Court has consistently recognized the right to arms as an individual right in every Second Amendment case they've heard.
You don't read very well, do you? In the 1886 Presser ruling, The Supreme Court specifically ruled just the other way. They ruled that Illinois' restriction on the bearing of firearms was Constititutional and that the Second Amendment applied to state militias, not all citizens. They said:
If you are going to spew propaganda, the least you can do is check your facts first.
I'm sick of you, your name-calling, insults, and other bullshit. I did far more research than you, did a better job of checking my facts, and presented multiple examples of court decisions that supported my position. As to your interpretation of the Bill of Rights, Constitution, etc., I could not care less.
as far as the cases you cited I looked them up on the internet. That is not exactly what the court said. In both cases a sawed off shotgun was the case.
First, I don't know where "both" came from when I cited three cases:
1886: Presser vs. Illinois
1939: United States vs. Miller.
1976: United States v. Warin,
Presser was a case involving a company of 400 armed men riding through the City of Chicago brandishing swords and rifles. Warin was a case involving a submachine gun. Only Miller involved a sawed off shotgun.
They found a sawed off shotgun was not needed for a state militia (and thier language strongly implied that if it were the law would have been unconstitutional) and therefore fell into states right.
The language implied that the state could not universally ban a weapon needed by a state militia. But the court did not state that the each and every citizen of the state must be legally permitted to keep and bear those weapons or that each person be allowed to be a part of said state militia.
Every able bodied person WAS the militia - they felt standing armies were anathema to a democracy or republic.
Including convicted felons?
But it was not every person. It was every able-bodied male. So does that mean that a state has a legal right to prevent women from owning guns? Sounds that way if we want to be strict constructionists.
I read it. So who is David M. Putzolu (the author)? Going back to the home page, it's a frighteningly right-wing, conspiracy theory page. It hits all the major conspiracy theories as well as engaging in no small amount of political slander. We have "WACO -- Who Fired First?", "Cocaine use in the White House", and a piece in which the writer theorizes that Ron Brown's plane was sabotaged as some kind of White House plot to cover up something related to campaign finance (to name just a few).
When they agree with you on the gun issue, they're the finest legal minds. When they rule otherwise, hmmm, say on a national election issue, they're a bunch of right-wing activists.
While there have been some questionable decisions by the Supreme Court, citing multiple rulings that stretch back 115+ years takes those out of the equation.
Yes, because we all know that only the people in power have the right to interpret public law and policy.
Having a law degree does not put you "in power."
When some random person on Slashdot starts offering up his opinions on the law, without even presenting the reasoning behind those opinions, it's fairly reasonable to ask what his credentials are.
While you may feel that the Constitution is easily understood by someone in grade school, countless hours have been spent by lawyers, judges, and legal scholars pondering its subtleties.
Now that you've beaten up on those who made poor arguments against you, why don't you try responding to the well reasoned ones?
Well pardon the hell out of me for going to bed before the "well reasoned" arguments were posted.
Pray tell, in what state do you hold membership in the bar?
I am not an lawyer. Of courst, that is irrelevent as I was citing Supreme Court decisions to bolster my argument while the person was rendering his own interpretation of the Constitution ("Personally I say it is an individual right along with the rest of the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution. As far as the Supreme Court is concerned I think it is full of shit.").
When, in a debate on Constitutional law, you assert your own opinions, over and above the opinions of the Supreme Court, you better have some very strong legal credentials.
State constitutions do not overrule the Constitution of the United States. Are you stating that New Jersey's new law will run afoul of its state Constitution? If so, quote the passage or cite N.J. court cases that support your view. Don't just make wild sweeping statements that vaguely accuse me of ignorance.
The STATE militia and the UNREGULATED milita (every able bodied male age 18-45).
I don't see the point of your definitions. Are you saying that everyone over the age of 45 who is not in a state militia has no gun ownership rights? Or are you saying that "unregulated" militias can do whatever they want and that no state has a right to limit their actions?
You sound a classical lawyer that belives the state has power to do whatever it wants. You are part of the problem.
States have powers to enact any law which is constitutional and which does not run counter to federal laws. For example, California can pass laws requiring that cars sold there produce less pollution than the federally-mandated maximums. But they cannot pass laws which allow cars to exceed the pollution limits put in place at the federal level.
As I pointed out in my original posting:
There it is in black and white: states can regulate firearms as they see fit. End of story.
As to the "you are part of the problem" remark, try debating logically instead of simply attacking me because you don't like what I'm saying.
It's all about interptretation.
That's why we have the Supreme Court, so that we will have some of the finest legal minds making the interpretation.
As far as the Supreme Court is concerned I think it is full of shit.
It's not "the" Supreme Court in the sense of one group of Justices. I cited rulings that strethed over a 90 year period and all of those Justices ruled against the concept of the Second Amendment guaranteeing individual gun ownership rights.
Personally I say it is an individual right along with the rest of the rights provided by the U.S. Constitution.
Learned legal scholars and Supreme Court Justices disagree. What is your background and what law degrees do you hold?
They are creating law instead of making sure it is Constitutional these days.
So, do you include 1886, 1939, and 1976 as "these days"? Because those are the dates of the rulings that I cited. I find it hard to view 115-plus years ago as "these days."
In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban firearms if they so desire!
In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in United States vs. Miller. The Court refused to strike down a law prohibiting interstate sales of sawed-off shotguns on the basis of the Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia," the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state militias.
Since then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times the courts have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of the Second Amendment:
In the 1976 case of United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the states."
If the Constitution guaranteed an individual's right to unregulated gun ownership, the NRA would be challenging laws like this one and The Brady Bill in the Supreme Court. That is not happening because the NRA knows that they would lose any such challenge. That's why they spend their time and money lobbying (threatening, rewarding, and bribing) Congress to limit gun legislation. If you want to make claims about the Constitution, do some case law research before you do.
The scientific theories of the big bang and evolution are based on logic, observations, and measurements rather than a blind faith in a book written by a bunch of sheep herders 2,000 years ago. Things like background radiation, the red shift, a rich fossil record, and carbon dating all support those theories.
You are living proof that we need a moment of science rather than a moment of silence in schools.