Posted on 02/14/2016 12:55:33 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Saturday at the age of 79, wrote many notable opinions and dissents during his 30 years on the bench.
But there is one case that stands out: Scalia's 2008 majority decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a Washington, DC, handgun ban and led to a slew of lawsuits questioning the constitutionality of gun control.
"It was the first Supreme Court decision to authoritatively interpret the Second Amendment. It is rare for [a] justice to write on a constitutional issue where there is no prior case law," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider in an email message.
That landmark decision ruled that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
Here's what the Second Amendment says: "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."
Man legal scholars, when reading that amendment, might interpret the "right to possess a firearm" does not apply to ordinary civilians who aren't in the military. Scalia, however, said the first part of the sentence -- "a well regulated militia" -- merely stated why it was important for the American people to be able to bear arms: It was important for Americans to have this right so they could have a well-regulated militia.
Scalia argued that first clause didn't "limit the scope" of the second part of the sentence -- that the "right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Americans needed this right so they could have a well-regulated militia,
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Heller
Our Republic is in severe jeopardy today because of Justice Scalia's death yesterday.
I believe Obama will appoint Scalia's successor, and that McConnell and the Senate will confirm anyone Obama wants, including the odious Eric Holder.
Imagine a 5-4 Supreme Court decision interpreting the 2nd Amendment to ban the mere possession of handguns. It could happen. MILLIONS of us would not comply, of course. Any attempt to force us would lead to mass death.
But this one event, Scalia's death, could be the inflection point of the downfall of the American Republic, and quite possibly the traceable initiation of the 2nd American Civil War.
Any American civil war would end poorly. Likely, there would be mass gun confiscation by government agencies in US neighborhoods and any resistance portrayed as the new american ISIS.
I don’t honestly see how the people would be willing to resist much. The US has been steadily diminishing local communal identity with its immigration and economic policy for decades. So there’s not really a communal network of established individuals who could easily band together. And the likelihood of online networking is a joke in today’s surveillance technology.
All the wars in the Middle-East have essentially written the SOP for armed population suppression.
Oh well. I'll be dead so I won't care.
Guaren-damn-tee ya. Bringing a lot of passengers too.
Scalia was one of our most brilliant jurists ever.....in so many ways. But God took him home.
My only question on the Heller ruling was why Scalia didn’t go further, focusing on the word “infringed”. “Not be infringed” means shall not be hindered in any way, shape, or form - at all.
Yet, even concealed carry laws “infringe” on the right to bear arms. So do laws prohibiting weapons in Federal buildings, courts, and schools. So are laws that prohibit automatic weapons.
“Not be infringed” has been contradicted and violated in so many ways. No one will address the meaning of “infringed.”
This post resonated with me because I just watched Band Of Brothers and appreciated what they (and now we) are facing.
************
However, there is a point at which sheep who must lay down and die because the wolf has such fierce teeth that some semblance of fight, will-to-live, and right has to triumph. Otherwise, let’s all just hang it the eff up and vote for Obama’s choice and elect that harridan Hillary.
I am a big fan of “Band of Brothers.†There was a sideline story about a soldier that suffered from psychological blindness and uncertainty. Later on, one of the other ‘brothers’ told him “you have to know in your heart that here, now, you are already dead. When you realize that is when you become completely free of fear and can function as a soldier.â€
We are at this point now.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3396892/posts?page=14#14
I believe any CWII would likely look like what we see in the middle east. How well can the Crown Victoria stand up to an IED? I believe we will see people taking effective strategies from the wars fought on the other side of the world and applying them here **if it ever came to that**. Godwilling, let’s all hope not. Given that it will have to be assymetical warfare, this is what would be most likely to succeed.
If it happens it will be far uglier than any of us care to imagine.
But I think after a few battles to "blood" the troops, I think the resistance would do OK. Especially if the resistance received assistance from people who support our cause of liberty, but didn't necessarily want to fight. Material support would make all the difference.
I pray that God would forbid it.
But I don't think He will.
Why, was it written in some foreign language?
It’s a great day to buy more ammo! Just in case.
Of course, it’s always a great day to buy ammo.
Gwjack
That's because for most people, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", is pretty easy to understand.
Well, that sett;es it - we MUST elect Trump - This is the kind of Justice he would appoint
Time to take the blinders off, folks
Scalia’s holding is the same position as that taken by Ted Cruz in the amicus brief he filed in Heller. Two top-notch, constitutional originalists who helped win the day in a 5-4 decision.
With Scalia now gone, it is absolutely critical we elect a president who knows how to select an originalist constitutional scholar who will hold firm just like Scalia did in Heller.
It is. I’m sitting right next to my reloading bench, fixing to start making some more ammo.
OK, this clears it up for me... 2nd Amendment protects all the rest.
Have Cruz on Supreme Court:
“...Scalia’s holding is the same position as that taken by Ted Cruz in the amicus brief he filed in Heller. Two top-notch, constitutional originalists who helped win the day in a 5-4 decision. ...”
And Trump to put him there:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment-rights
A couple snippets from the link:
“GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weaponsâ€, “military-style weapons†and “high capacity magazines†to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.”
“NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving — which is a privilege, not a right — then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.”
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.