Bigfoot3814
Deity
(Hint: It has to do with reason)
Well, in theory, one could reason up an exuse to get rid of the first ammendment. Does that make it any more right?
SCOTUS to rule on 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter Bugfatty300
- Start date
Well, in theory, one could reason up an exuse to get rid of the first ammendment. Does that make it any more right?
Zarn
Le Républicain Catholique
Sometimes using what some people deem reasonable leads to a loss of rights, and this usually stems from a need for security or family values.
I certainly think it is the case, here.
I certainly think it is the case, here.
Bigfoot3814
Deity
sonorakitch
Overseas hunter
Those anti-globalization protests in Seattle a few years back injured a number of innocents.
I think preserving the security of the silent masses deems elements of the 1st amendment ill-concieved.
~Chris
Ecofarm
Deity
I don't want a Nazi fighting for me. You're not a real soldier anyway. Real soldiers take an oath to and fight for the constitution, and you don't believe in it. Your service means nothing to me. You're just a sicko who likes guns. I hope a decent soldier upholds his oath to the constitution and frags you.
Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
I don't see how they could restrict it to DC without thereby opening all the federal regulations to scrutiny. From what I've read, they're likely to say that yes, the 2nd Amendment is about an individual right (finally burying the collective right interpretation for good), and yes banning all pistols is infringement. Whether the 2nd constrains state/local governments as well (Incorporation) and scrutiny tests probably won't get touched this time around.
JollyRoger,
So what's the Militia Clause? Is it just a "here's why we're protecting this right" preamble? Like a "whereas" clause? The writing is so archaic it's difficult to give the whole thing meaning -- either you take it to only protect militias, but then you ignore the plain meaning of "the right of the people . . . shall not be infringed," or you take it to be absolute and turn the Militia Clause into a preamble. It's a very tough question.
Cleo
So what's the Militia Clause? Is it just a "here's why we're protecting this right" preamble? Like a "whereas" clause? The writing is so archaic it's difficult to give the whole thing meaning -- either you take it to only protect militias, but then you ignore the plain meaning of "the right of the people . . . shall not be infringed," or you take it to be absolute and turn the Militia Clause into a preamble. It's a very tough question.
Cleo
The Supreme Court didn't realease an opinion in Heller today. There is another opinion release day on Monday and then probably one or two more opinion release days later in the week (Wednesdayday and/or Thrsay being most likely). For the March sitting, only scakia and Souter have not penned opinions and thee are two outstanding cases from that sitting remaining (Heller being one of them), so it is likely that either Scalia or Souter is writing the opinion for Heller.
Bigfoot3814
Deity
Most gun crimes are committed by illegal gun ownership anyway. I don't think any gangsters have permits for thier guns, they just have them.
Why? If the felony is violent enough, they are likely serving life or getting the death penalty, so they will never get access to their weapons stash. Once they are out, I don't see why they should be infringed from regaining access.
Our 1st Amendment rights are limited more than they should be because the 3 branches of government take reasonableness too far.
During the period of incarceration, felons shouldn't have access to their weapons, but they should not be dispossessed of them either. As for other rights, I can see certain restrictions based on the fact that they are incarcerated, but again we go too far. For example, I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to cast write-in votes in elections held in their last place of residence prior to incarceration.
I think you read the clause to see what the government can do. Is there a reasonableness standard on if the government can quarter soldiers in your home? To me, "Congress shall pass no law" means just that. "Shall not be infringed" means just that. We have an Amendment process if those standards are too tough.Second, do you believe in unlimited Constitutional rights? Or do you believe that the others can be safely infringed upon, because they don't have the phrasing "shall not be infringed" in the actual Amendment? If you don't believe in unlimited Constitutional rights, then what standard do you use to draw the line? (Hint: It has to do with reason
I agree that they will address the individual/collective distinction (likely in favor of individual) and the gun ban (although it is possible that portions of the DC ban will be upheld). I also agree that they will likely punt on the other issues.
I think they may slyly use the militia clause to justify not giving full meaning to the shall not be infringed clause and use the shall not be infringed clause to justify not giving full meaning to the militia clause. I think it will be an interesting display of judicial activism gymnastics and strictly construing anything will be out the window.
blackheart
unenlightened
There's no chance in hell that you would get a light sentence for shooting at, much less murdering a cop. The most likely scenario is they pump at least 20 rounds in you before they stop to ask any questions. Otherwise, it's at least 20 to life. And given your nature, you wouldn't last long in prison.
blackheart
unenlightened
This is true. Most guncrimes are committed by people who own them illegally. There are enough safeguards and checks in place to let legal gun owners know that they're easily tracked if they do commit a crime with their gun.
I think the militia clause was just a justification-for-history type add-on that doesn't restrict "shall not be infringed." The argument could be made that it gives guidance into bearing arms - that the feds cannot infringe on the states having armed militias (colective right) and it could reflect at the individual level possible infringements (felons, slaves, women circa 1789 - can be infringed since they would not normally be qualified for the militia, right to bear non-militia arms could infringed, etc.) .
"That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. "
Take that.
Take that.
History_Buff
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2001
- Messages
- 6,529
People don't kill people, unaborted fetuses kill people.
I fail to see how the 2nd Amendment says you can own whatever weapon you want. I advocate banning all guns save 18th Century Muskets. Then force every non-felon to own one. Then you can shoot whoever you want, but everyone else will be in a position to shoot you back, while you won't be able to shoot again for another few minutes.
Really, there's all kinds of shortcuts to get around that one. 'Arms' doesn't neccesarily mean firearms, perhaps it means polearm, or perhaps merely your actual arms? You can't have an army of amputees after all. Or perhaps make bullets illegal. You can have your gun all you want, but until a legal Civil authority gives you bullets, you can't do much with it.
I think the Court will play a little smoke and mirrors with the militia clause to justify not giving full weight to the shall not infringe clause, but still strike down to "worst" of the infringements. One way to do that would be to use the militia clause as a way of showing "shall not infringe" was not absolute and pointing out 1789 era infringements. In this way the Court can pick and choose which gun laws to uphold based on them covering government power emanating from the penumbras (heh) of the militia clause and which to strike down because of the shall not be infringed clause.
Similar threads
