|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
||||
|
||||
John Paul Stevens, "The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure" (Heller)
__________________
240+ examples of CCWs Saving Lives. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
Scary that so many smart, powerful people believe this nonsense. Hanging all his logic on the preamble and missing the main clause of the right of 'the people' entirely. In essence, saying it is a right granted to the government and not the people. Try explaining the Bill of Rights and telling folks that the 2A is different and doesn't apply to 'the people' yet all the others do. Yeah, preaching to the choir, I know ...
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kennedy regrets that he "failed to emphasize sufficiently the human aspects of the issue as providing unanswerable support for the stare decisis argument for affirmance."
That sounds to me like he wanted a particular outcome (the "human" aspects, to protect the people from themselves) rather that a decision based on the intent of the constitution as written. Clearly he is a believer in a "living breathing constitution," rather than a strict constitution that protects the people from the government. |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
Bull
Quote:
in Miller- Miller was a dirt poor moonshiner.... Miller won On appeal, the government won - Miller was a no show - he was never contacted so he had no idea the G men were trying to go after him again Horrible case law..... This judge also feels the Jim Crow laws to disarm black was OK
__________________
Rule 1- ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED Rule 2 -NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY (including your hands and legs) Rule 3 -KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET Rule 4 -BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT (thanks to Jeff Cooper) |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
You can affirm the 2A in the courts or it will be affirmed in the streets.
It just takes 3% of us.
__________________
Freedom is the dream you dream while putting thought in chains. - Giacomo Leopardi |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
They know it is garbage, and they dont care. They know roe v wade is a crap opinion, but they do not care. They put ideology over integrity.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
You might be correct, in terms of the elites (although not all), but my experience is that the low-information voter actually buys this s&!t spewed by them. I've had arguments with several people and they get real quiet when I point out the obvious.
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I was speaking about guys like Stevens. No question he knows. He just doesnt care.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
The treason, dishonesty, and hatred on the left seems unbounded.
His argument comes in two points:
Let's analyze this for a moment. All the other rights of "the people" in Constitution are individual rights. The only collective rights in the const. are rights given to entities that were incorporated at the time: the states. If they had wanted to make it a collective right they would have said, "the right of the states to keep weapons of war" or something like that. Does he think that some of the other rights, like the 1A, are collective? "No, you're not allowed to say that. Only a state-approved press organization is allowed to say things like that." Hahaha. Maybe the right to freedom of religion is collective? "Yes you're free to practice any state-organized religion." Now on to #2, which is a doozy... MANY constitutional rights are inconvenient. Police would definitely be more effective if they were not burdened by all these nonsense restrictions on search and seizure and warrants. And trials by jury, what an annoyance! There are career criminals and gang members that we can't lock up because jury trials are so inconvenient. We would all be safer if the police could be given a freer hand in taking bad people off the streets. Those pesky constitutional rights are getting in the way of public safety! In fact, gun ownership doesn't correlate at all with public safety. Unfortunately what correlates with public safety are certain factors liberals are afraid to discuss.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
The confusion arises because of the changing over time of the use of the word militia. They did not define it the constitution because they assumed it was common knowledge. Look at the state constitutions of the original 13 states that were in effect at the time and they all define it. The National Guard is not the militia. The California State Military Reserve is not the militia.
In fact, if we check California law we see ... Military and Veterans Code - MVC DIVISION 2. THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE STATE PART 1. THE STATE MILITIA CHAPTER 2. General Organization 122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State. Miller, had he resided in California, would have been a member of the militia.
__________________
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
An honest essay from him would be something explaining why the 2A is obsolete and why we need to change it.
Things like that have been done before. Slavery became intolerable and it was ended by an amendment. Alcohol prohibition became intolerable and it was also ended by an amendment. There's a procedure for changing the constitution when there's a broad consensus that some aspect of it is no longer viable. If he really really wanted to save lives, he would propose an amendment that clarifies that "stop and frisk" is legal and officers can use their discretion to do those searches, regardless of profiling. That would absolutely save lives, especially of underprivileged minorities. When NYC did something partially along those lines it provably saved hundreds of lives of the underprivileged. Why not address that? But no... he wants to disarm white conservatives because that's what his real goal is.
__________________
"Weakness is provocative." Senator Tom Cotton, president in 2024 Victoria "Tori" Rose Smith's life mattered. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
No more an no less than the above, where some firearm's owners oppose the 1st Amendment right to privacy and some privacy advocates oppose a 2nd Am. right to individual arms ownership. Folks either take all of the Bill of Rights or they get none of it. There is no piecemeal or localized bill of rights. It is the same everywhere. The Constitution is fundamental, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 177 (1803). Those determinations of what the constitution means are binding until such time as our Supreme Court expands, narrows, or overturns them. Otherwise, our system of separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense.
Last edited by sarabellum; 05-17-2019 at 2:27 PM.. |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
IIRC there are 5 elements and privacy is not in there! Judge Steven's is a dishonest man ! Last edited by ja308; 05-17-2019 at 8:34 PM.. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Steven's doesn't realize it but his arguement is advocating for a robust militia - he really doesn't mean that but hold him to it and demand a well armed militia. Watch him squirm.
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one's children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. By Meyer v. Nebraska, supra, the same dignity is given the right to study the German language in a private school. In other words, the State may not, consistently with the spirit of the First Amendment, contract the spectrum of available knowledge. The right of freedom of speech and press includes not only the right to utter or to print, but the right to distribute, the right to receive, the right to read . . . Without those peripheral rights, the specific rights would be less secure.Folks, who elected to not study civics in high school and do not care to familiarize themselves with our constitution, argue that the constitution should be arbitrarily enforced, e.g. anti-4th and 5th Amendment claims of "technicalities" leading to the release of "obviously" guilty people. There is no room for situational ethics. However, keep arguing matters like "it doesn't say that" so the state can demand the member list to whatever group that the state and business find unpalatable, and then round those folks up. In the 1940's the unpalatable folks were Japanese, in the 1950s it was leaders of organized labor, and in the 1960s the unpalatable folks were civil rights activists. For the 2010s, it could be members of armament groups just like you. Be careful what you wish for. Until such time as the Supreme Court reverses a decision, that decision is the constitution, binding on all federal, state, and local actors. Otherwise, our constitution premised upon separation of powers and stare decisis make no sense. No one gets to pick and choose what part of the constitution they like. That is the same mentality of the opponents of armament. Last edited by sarabellum; 05-17-2019 at 10:07 PM.. |
#22
|
||||
|
||||
‘We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.’
Chief Justice John Roberts coughbull****cough |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
That said the griswald case seems kinda stupid where a conviction was overturned for prescribing contraceptives. One would think the law was unconstitutional and would have been challenged as opposed to privacy issue. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
1. Appellants have standing to assert the constitutional rights of the married people. Tileston v. Ullman, 318 U.S. 44, distinguished. P. 481.The Plaintiff doctors and health center filed suit on behalf of their patients, close relationship standing, to challenge the constitutionality of former "§§ 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev.)." People, who oppose a particular constitutional right, will propose statutes faster than people can challenge them or afford financially to retain counsel to challenge them, as we saw with contraception and sadly we see with arms ownership. Without the penumbra of protection inherent in a constitutional provision or principle inherent in the laws of nations, constitutional rights in language drafted in the negative are hollow. We will likely not see the penumbra analysis applied to firearms, because the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald signaled a departure from that penumbra, adopting a hands off stance where the court will not entertain challenges to the constitutionality of arms regulations: It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not “a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 54). We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Id.We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents’ doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms.Folks have every reason to be skeptical of the Supreme Court. Last edited by sarabellum; 05-18-2019 at 4:03 PM.. |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
US v Carolene Products Co gave us the pure adhoc fabrication of levels of scrutiny fiasco so is arguably the worst decision ever. No where in the constitution is there any hint of a hierarchy of rights.
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by sarabellum; 05-19-2019 at 4:35 PM.. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
I would have bet money you were in favor of unions donating to and working for their candidates !
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|