Posted on 07/03/2008 4:52:53 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
"I have said consistently that I believe the Second Amendment is an individual right." -- Barack Obama, June 26, 2008
"In some ways, the Supreme Court term that just ended seems muddled: disturbing, highly conservative rulings on subjects like voting rights and gun control . . . In another sharp break with its traditions, the court struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself and ruled that it confers on individuals the right to keep guns in their homes for personal use. The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence." -- NYT editorial, A Supreme Court on the Brink, July 3, 2008 [emphasis added]
How far left is the editorial board of the New York Times? Far enough that, when it comes to the Second Amendment, Barack Obama would seemingly qualify as "highly conservative" in its eyes.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
To the NY Times, even Obama’s a conservative ping to Today show list.
Is that statement true? My understanding was that previous rulings had been ambiguous on that specific right and that Heller has now clarified it (for the moment anyway).
That struck me too, Jack. I don’t think that is a correct statement of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The question of anindividual’s right to bear arms separate from a militia had specifically NOT been settled.
That struck me too, Jack. I don’t think that is a correct statement of Supreme Court jurisprudence. The question of anindividual’s right to bear arms separate from a militia had specifically NOT been settled.
Made me sick.
Seven decades in the eyes of the NYT and liberal legal scholars like Jonathan Turley and even authors (and former lawyers) such as Scott Thurow. For years, these folks have obfuscated the meaning of the Second Amendment to such an extent that many moderates have tilted in their favor.
In the eyes of members of the NRA, there was never any doubt.
Maybe some folks need to learn the King’s English (of the 18th Century) again.
It most definitely WILL add to the number of Americans killed by gun violence. Americans who invade homes to rob, kill, rape... And, I say, GOOD RIDDANCE!
Nope, not true. In fact lower courts had already ruled the right to be individual. Liberals are the only ones who ever tied it to the military in an effort to ensure they could make whatever laws they wanted in their quest to disarm the American public. They are trying to pretend that the ruling doesn't really mean anything. As far as Obama's statement about always upholding the RTKBA, he is lying. He stated earlier this year that he thought the DC ban constitutional. He is rated F by the NRA and is a rabid anti-gun politician. The NYT is merely trying to fool voters into thinking he is all for the second amendment when in reality he wants us all disarmed.
If Obama is conservative (even slightly so), then Karl Marx is a middle-of-the-roader.
Which is, I suppose, the position that the NY Slimes has held for several decades.
You believe? You don't KNOW?
I have said consistently that I KNOW the 2nd amendment is MY right to defend MY life by bearing arms.
NYT editorial:
After seven decades of holding that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is tied to raising a militia, the court reversed itself...
&%$# @#$& &%#@ NY slime IDIOTS!!
SCOTUS did NOT 'reverse' anything. They're referring to Miller and Miller only pertained to the &%$# #*&*ing Weapon and its use in 'the Militia' (sawed off shotgun). NOT that only the 'Militia' could bear arms.
Dammit to hell Justice Scalia even addressed that in the Majority Opinion. The darn thing is only 64 pages. Is that too much for the NY Slimes to read? Would reading that give them a brain freeze. Sheesh!!
Furthermore, SCOTUS never should have heard Miller then. He was dead, and his attorney didn't even appear before SCOTUS to argue on his behalf. The way it went the fix was basically in for the gubmint. So if anything did need overturning it WAS Miller.
As usual, the Slimes is dead wrong. Here's the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment:
The Second Amendment does not confer upon the people the right to keep and bear arms; it is one of the provisions of the Constitution which, recognizing the prior existence of a certain right, declares that it shall not be infringed by Congress. Thus the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution and therefore is not dependant upon that instrument for its source. United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 543; Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 265; Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281. [Emphasis added] Note that the majority opinion in Heller quoted this paragraph, this reiterating for the 2nd time in 69 years that this is settled law.
The Miller decision ruled only that:
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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
In other words, the Court did NOT even address whether Miller was a member of the militia - the assumption was that he had an inherent RKBA. Had the members of the 1939 Court believed as the Slimes erroneously thinks they did, the matter would have easily been disposed of because the Court's opinion would simply have said that Miller lacked standing to assert any 2nd Amendment rights because he wasn't acting in the capacity of a militia member (as the 9th Circus has repeatedly ruled - and I can't wait for that "court" to get bitchslapped on that issue) and, in fact, was too old to be a part of the militia. End of case, end of the RKBA - if the Slimes view is correct, which it isn't.
No, Miller dealt only with the suitability of a sawed-off shotgun for militia duty. Period. End of Report. Oh, by the way, ONLY the government filed a brief and had an attorney (Robert Jackson, US Solicitor General and future Supreme Court Justice) present at oral arguments. Miller, you see, was DEAD, and no one was paid to represent him because it served no purpose (to him, but not to us - thanks a LOT, Fuddite NRA of 1939).
The Heller decision straightened out, once and for all in our judicial system, what Miller stands for. Of course, expecting that the Idioter of the Slimes would actually read and honestly interpret Miller is asking way too much. BTW, the full slate of filings, plus background and some editorial comments, can be found at
http://www.rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html
The decision will no doubt add significantly to the number of Americans killed by gun violence."
Maybe initially, and then only among those not inclined to obey laws of any kind (especially gun laws) - and that's going to be followed by a drop in crime rates in those cities and states that up to now have infringed the crap out of their citizens' RKBA. Oh, and the increase in deaths among the criminal class (Street Division - not directly related to either the Political Division or the Suit-and-Tie Division) will not be a bad thing.
Clearly, great minds (yours, mine, Scalia’s) think alike. I was busy composing while you beat me to the punch.
"How far left is the editorial board of the New York Times?"Darn, I hate trick questions in the morning, but I'll give it a shot....
If Leon Trotsky was still alive he'd be working there.An aside, Trotsky's real name was Lev Davidovich Bronstein. Which begs the question, Why do these Commies change their names? Lenin's was Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov and Stalin's, Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili.
:-) I'm surprised I beat you. My typing stinks.
As to 'Miller', Thanks to Al Gore's Internet thingy the first time I was able to read it on-line, I went 'Whoa, 'Miller' was only about the shotgun, not Militia vs Individual rights'. But try explaining that to a lib - its like banging your head on the wall or arguing with a six year old.
Maybe in Bizarro World.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.