Shootings (buy, safe, cars)

[desibhar]

Originally Posted by ExPit

Would you elaborate on that? I really want to know.

Ok, lets take the wording of the Amendment first:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


A well regulated Milita = Implies that the right to firearms is only allowed for citizens of state militias (which does not imply everyone, just people who are trained by the state) to protect themselves against the federal government

Being Necessary to the Security of a Free State = Once again, this language leads to the implication that this was put in for the protection of state rights against the federal government. This was the main problem in England, where the tyrannical federal government imposed their will on the people without allowing local militias to have weapons. This was at the forefront of the debate at the Constitutional Convention, when it was being ratified.

The right of the people to bear arms = Although the word people is in the operative clause, it should be read in its full phrasing "to bear arms". Bear arms is a term that was used in historical references to operate as a term for warfare or the militia. This operative phrase, although implying a tinge of an individual right, shows that "the people" should be construed in a collective right, for states to protect themselves against the federal government as a militia (hence the phrase "the right of the people to bear arms")

Now this is just the wording of the Constitution. Their are more portions of the historical and prior case law that show that it is a collective right. I don't want to bore you with all of the details, but you get the point of what I'm trying to say. I had to write a brief about this over a whole semester, so I kind've get peeved when people make false assumptions about the wording.

PS I'm not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. I personally believe that people should have guns for individual uses, but the wording of the constitution does not imply that specific individual right. Hence why I made the statement that the Supreme Court basically wrote in their own views about how the Constitution should be interpreted (judicial activism as its finest, and from a conservative court!)

[ExPit]

Thank you for that. What was the political environment that motivated the Supreme Court to make those subsequent interpretations? If you care to go into it. You mentioned that it was a conservative court, but what else was at play?

[desibhar]

Originally Posted by ExPit

Thank you for that. What was the political environment that motivated the Supreme Court to make those subsequent interpretations? If you care to go into it. You mentioned that it was a conservative court, but what else was at play?

What do you mean? The main case (prior to the latest DC v Heller case) in 1939 was Unites States v Miller, they said:

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

After that, almost all of the federal circuit courts subsequently interpreted this to mean that the Second Amendment only protected a collective right (meaning the weapon had to be in connection to a state milita).

One exception was the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (US v Emerson, 2001). After ruling against the defendant on a technicality, the Supreme Court went through lenghty dicta (i.e. not pertaining to the case) about how the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right.

No subsequent federal court had adopted that view until DC v Heller (2008), in which the Supreme Court explicitly said:

"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."

So the Supreme Court basically sidestepped the issue by narrowing the holding of Miller to only affecting particularly type of weapons. Now the Supreme Court doesn't have to take the view of previous circuit courts or legislative history, but it seems that the Supreme Court abruptly made a shift in the law. Scalia (whom I personally love, but was not too impressed with in this opinion) focused on the "people" aspect of the Second Amendment, and gave largely little or no weight to the rest of the wording of the Second Amendment.

I was dissapointed with the opinion, because I am a legal textualist, meaning the Constitution should mean what it says, and there should not be large deviations from the wording. Where the Amendments don't cover the area, the Supreme Court shoudn't be advising on the issue.

The NRA has been a great champion for individual rights. However, let me finish by saying Expit, that in the areas of the country where handgun restrictions have taken place, criminal activity has not gone down at all (in the District, where the Heller case focused on, crime has actually gone up since the handgun ban was in effect).

[ExPit]

Well, what I mean is, if the 2nd Amendment was only meant to protect the collective right, then in US v. Emerson 2001 why in its lengthy dicta did the Court go into such details not related to the case that protect an individual's right, and why, seven years later did Scalia focus on the same wrongheaded interpretation? And more simply, if the Amendment is to be interpreted to only protect the rights of a government trained militia to bear arms, then why is it perfectly legal for everyone of age who's not a convicted felon to do so?

[desibhar]

Originally Posted by ExPit

Well, what I mean is, if the 2nd Amendment was only meant to protect the collective right, then in US v. Emerson 2001 why in its lengthy dicta did the Court go into such details not related to the case that protect an individual's right, and why, seven years later did Scalia focus on the same wrongheaded interpretation? And more simply, if the Amendment is to be interpreted to only protect the rights of a government trained militia to bear arms, then why is it perfectly legal for everyone of age who's not a convicted felon to do so?

Judicial Activism... See Roe v Wade, another right (abortion) which is not in the Constitution (they bypass the constitutional debate by using words such as "fundamental rights")

Unfortunately, there really is no Constitution. It is dead, and people are fighting over what their version of the Constitution should look like (this is why you have people bitterly fighting over Supreme Court justice appointments. If people simply followed the words and meaning of the Constitution, you wouldn't have as many fights about appointments).

Alas, ever since FDR, and the expansion of the federal government, the Supreme Court has decided to ignore the Constitution that our Founding Fathers fought for, and implement whatever they see fit, using fairness and equity as their only yardstick.

Anyway, if you want to know more DM me, I don't really want to hijack this thread anymore than I have already done.

[ExPit]

Thanks for your time.

[creepsinc]

I'm not one to throw around the "f" word. However, there is a perfect word for people who believe in taking away rights from other people ("The People" is as unambiguous as it gets. Everyone was the militia back then) and giving them to the government. For people who believe in legislating what other people can put into or take out of their OWN bodies, or who can marry whom. For anybody who believes their own version of "morality" (whatever that is) can be forced upon everyone else. That word is "fascist". Case closed.

[creepsinc]

I propose that anything that has nothing to do with shootings in Homestead be moved to the Oppression thread. Organized religion (history's greatest oppressor) and the belief that the "Constitution is dead" (an invitation to oppression) certainly belong over there.


http://www.city-data.com/forum/pittsburgh/389310-generic-oppression-thread.html

[desibhar]

Originally Posted by creepsinc

I'm not one to throw around the "f" word. However, there is a perfect word for people who believe in taking away rights from other people ("The People" is as unambiguous as it gets. Everyone was the militia back then) and giving them to the government. For people who believe in legislating what other people can put into or take out of their OWN bodies, or who can marry whom. For anybody who believes their own version of "morality" (whatever that is) can be forced upon everyone else. That word is "fascist". Case closed.

That is your political beliefs. However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution protects your beliefs. Show me where the Constitution protects the woman's right to chose. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but that view is again, not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court should be protecting the Constitution, not political views of either the right or left.

By the way, what about polygamy? You want a society where everyone has multiple partners in a marriage? Just where do you draw the line in your view? It seems like forcing people to only marry one person is "fascist". So is preventing people from commiting crimes (that is an imposition of someone's version of morality).

[creepsinc]

Originally Posted by desibhar

That is your political beliefs. However, that doesn't mean that the Constitution protects your beliefs. Show me where the Constitution protects the woman's right to chose. Personally, I'm pro-choice, but that view is again, not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court should be protecting the Constitution, not political views of either the right or left.

By the way, what about polygamy? You want a society where everyone has multiple partners in a marriage? Just where do you draw the line in your view? It seems like forcing people to only marry one person is "fascist". So is preventing people from commiting crimes (that is an imposition of someone's version of morality).

I have no problem with polygamy, or any other behavior between consenting adults. Let's not get silly, it's implied that all legal behavior hurts no one else, except possibly oneself.

Abortion is covered by the word "liberty". It's a fetus, not a child. Not till it can live on its own, outside the womb.