Posted on 02/27/2017 5:06:34 AM PST by servo1969
Well, .. Eugene, .. you’re right! But, .. all the other Profs at UCLA HATE you for it.
the right of the “”””people”””” to keep and bear Arms
Generational argument .... keep fighting those that seek to disarm us.
Whenever you see “the people” in the constitution and its amendments, It is talking about each and every INDIVIDUAL citizen. It is not talking about a collective of citizens.
Whenever I see the phrase “the people” in the constitution, I replace it with my name. That is literally what it was written to mean for each of us.
It is that simple.
I will add that the preamble to that amendment makes it darned clear it is not about hunting.
The People:
THE PEOPLE as in the Bill of Rights:
1. Right of the.people to peacefully assemble
2. Right of the people to keep and bear arms
4. Right of the people to be secure in their persons houses, possessions and effects
9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10. Powers not delegated to the United States...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people
What is so amazing is how this clearly spelled out right has been attacked for all these years. Liberals are constantly trying to change the lexicon of the plainly spoken word to advance tyranny.
BFLR
This was argued in the 1990s as well. The simple fact is that Leftists on the court deem rights to be whatever they think those rights should be. As a corollary, that’s also why they don’t want the public at large to be armed.
Why Bans on So-Called "Assault Weapons" Are Unlikely to Diminish the Deaths Caused by Mass Shootings
I'm on the record as saying that bans on so-called "assault weapons" are likely constitutional (see pp. 1483-87 of this article), and several state courts have held the same under state constitutional individual right-to-bear-arms provisions before Heller. Such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don't substantially burden the constitutional right.
FWIW (I think it unfortunate), Volkh is a favorite to cite, by judges. He is cited by SCOTUS, in Heller.
The 4 dissenting judges in the Heller case, voted that way without regard to facts or history.
The whole argument is MOOT because approximately 100 million Americans will not comply with ANY judiciary order to meekly turn in their guns and few LEO’s would enforce such an order.
A corollary situation was Prohibition. Look how well that federal over reach worked. Another more current situation is federal marijuana laws are ignored. And, so are immigration laws and the list goes on and on and on.
Think of the absurdity of the Framers feeling a need to state that “the right of the militia (army) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This was an era when we did not have men in dresses demanding to pee with little girls. Such an absurd concept as to disarm the militia would not even be conceivable in their minds.
It was clearly, as all of the Bill of Rights, designed to reiterate the rights of the people, not the rights of governments and armies.
I've never seen much question to that!
Yes!
Justice Scalia's decision in D.C. v. Heller secures an individual right to keep and bear arms free of infringement.
What remains for future courts to decide is what an infringement is.
A well regulated Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.
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.
There is NOTHING to interpret.
the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED...
look at the libtard unconstitutional SAFE act
it can not be changed by any COURT... any change must be ratified by 3/4th’s of the states
THE REAL PROBLEM IS THE FED ENCROACHMENT ON STATE RIGHTS AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
The 69th Amendment: A well regulated infestation being necessary to the insecurity of what was once a free state, the obligation of the people to bear and tolerate enemy islamist muslims shall not be abridged.
YES, we do because.......Without that RIGHT, a well regulated militia would not be possible.
Not only do I have a constitutional right to own a gun I have the inalienable God given right to oena gun. Inalienable rights don’t come from govt.
I read Atlas Shrugged in 1963 when I was a nineteen year old sailor with more than one year of service already. I was at Keflavik Naval Communications Station. Let anyone say what they will about Ayn Rand but she clearly explained that the CORRUPTION of language was one of the main tools of oppression. I am reminded of what she wrote every day when I have to try to decipher what people say and write and I am often left wondering if they themselves even know what they are trying to express. It is obvious that as far as the “mainstream” media types are concerned words have different meanings when spoken by different people and different meanings when spoken ABOUT different people. When a “liberal” says something about a “conservative” they mean something very different than what a “conservative” means when they use the same words in regard to a “liberal”.
This is by far the most succinct explanation of the 2nd Amendment that I have ever heard. Kudos Eugene Volokh on a job well done.
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.