Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

[robertpaulsen]

"If it was a valid reason, then they would have stated the reason, don't you think?"

Well, Judge Reinhardt tried real hard in Silveira v Lockyer. The man did go on and on. (But he was on a mission to refute Emerson.)

He stated his reason quite succinctly. Furthermore, he acknowledged the three different interpretations of the second amendment. What he didn't state was why he believed the first clause to be limiting (ie., the RKBA is only associated with a militia), rather than simply descriptive of one possible use for arms.

[tpaine]

Everyone on this thread is saying, [some more nicely than others] that YOU are the one making the 'insane' posts here

"Saying" is not "refuting". A distiction with a difference.

Another cute but meaningless comment paulsen.
-- Everyone on this thread is refuting your irrational positions. You respond with more irrationalities. -- Round we go.

Goodbye tpaine.

You leaving paulsen? Good plan.

I be done with you.

Nope, -- as long as you're here, posting your anti-Constitutional BS, -- you'll continue to be our patsy.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: If the weapon was indeed found to be a militia-type weapon ..."

I asked you what would happen if the lower court once again dismissed on Second Amendment grounds WITHOUT TRIAL.

The point is that the Supreme Court RULING in Miller is binding on the trial court. The lower court judge has no latitude whatever to ignore that ruling.

I pointed out that the Supreme Court has at its disposal the US Marshall's Service. At the request of the prosecution, the Supreme Court court remove that particular judge. They could have him arrested for contempt and jailed.

Have you ever heard of Judge Roy Moore. He is not a judge today. Perhaps he foresaw the results of his failure to obey a higher court's order. Perhaps not. But he is no longer a judge.

How about Brown vs. Board of Education? Where did the President get the authority to integrate southern schools?

What makes you believe that the Supreme Court would allow lower courts to just ignore their Miller RULING?

[inquest]

Well, Judge Reinhardt tried real hard in Silveira v Lockyer. The man did go on and on.

Ain't that the truth.

What he didn't state was why he believed the first clause to be limiting (ie., the RKBA is only associated with a militia), rather than simply descriptive of one possible use for arms.

Very true. He just assumed it right from the beginning of his meandering disquisition. Furthermore, he argued against himself when he stipulated that words used in one portion of the Constitution should have the same meaning in other portions, because if "people" means one thing in the first amendment, then it should mean the same thing in the second.

So at what point are we justified in concluding that a court opinion is wrong? Here we have a case where they simply made an assumption, utterly contrary to common sense, as well as to established rules of legal construction, without an attempt to justify it. There has to come a point where it's time to bite the bullet and say, "Yep, they screwed that one up."

-----------

P.S. Another whopper from the ruling: "Historians have observed that '[n]o state at the time, nor any state before, had ever compelled people to carry weapons in their private capacity.'" That is flat-out wrong. Several colonies had laws requiring people to carry weapons to church (Indian attacks and such). Also, the 9th Circus obviously never heard of this law (see highlighted).

[Ken H]

I wrote in post 433: Now, how does robertpaulsen interpret the Second Amendment?

rp responded in post 438: I've always believed in the "standard model" (aka "traditional individual rights model) interpretation of the second amendment.

But the more case law I read, the more I'm drifting to the "limited individual rights model".*

rp wrote in post 551: 1) Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution. That is my interpretation.

Now, how can you say you are drifting from the "standard model" to the "limited individual rights model" (which says there is an individual constitutional right to militia related weapons) and then say that you believe (ie, your interpretation) the Second Amendment is not meant to protect the RKBA from infringement by the States?

rp wrote: "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

You stating your opinion or case law? Recall that you made such a distinction in an earlier post. My answer depends on which you are talking about.

[tpaine]

RP wrote at #526:
-- "The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

rp wrote at #551:
--- "Your RKBA is defined and protected by your state constitution."

______________________________________


These two statements oppose each others logic, as a fundamental right cannot be redefined, -- and of course, -- our RKBA's is not being protected in many States.

It appears that paulsen has finally become aware that he is in a logical trap of his own making, and has left the field.
Well done to all.

[robertpaulsen]

"and then say that you believe (ie, your interpretation) the Second Amendment is not meant to protect the RKBA from infringement by the States?"

It's not. The second amendment is to protect against federal infringement, not state infringement. Like I stated before, find for me one case where the second amendment was successfully used to thwart some state gun legislation. There are none.

Now, maybe you believe the bull$hit being spewed by tpaine that the second amendment protects your RKBA from state infringement. It doesn't and it never has. If it did, there would be at least one case where the courts have overturned some state gun law because it violated the second amendment. Ask tpaine to give you just one (he can't, there isn't one).

When a federal gun law is challenged, the second amendment is cited. Emerson, for example, violated a federal law which he challenged as violating the second amendment. This is where the federal courts get into their "traditional individual rights model" and "limited individual rights model", etc.

Apples and oranges, Ken H. You did read my post #558, didn't you? I really don't know that I can be any clearer.

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."
"You stating your opinion or case law?"

It's a fact, supported by case law.

[tpaine]

Paulsens two statements oppose each others logic, -- as a fundamental right cannot be redefined, -- and of course, -- our RKBA's is not being protected in many States.

Now, maybe you believe the bull$hit being spewed by tpaine that the second amendment protects your RKBA from state infringement. It doesn't and it never has.

Irrational opinion, belied by the clear words of our US Constitution.

If it did, there would be at least one case where the courts have overturned some state gun law because it violated the second amendment. Ask tpaine to give you just one (he can't, there isn't one).

Never said there was one, paulsen.
The day will come when the Fed courts are forced into such an opinion, however. When that happens, it will also destroy the feds basis for ~their~ infringements. -- Which should give you a little clue on why it hasn't happened yet.

Not that a rabid gungrabbing anti-constitutionalist like you could ever 'get' a clue, of course.

[Ken H]

"The RKBA is a fundamental right that state legislators may or may not infringe, depending on their state constitution."

It's a fact, supported by case law.

As for case law: I don't recall where anyone has claimed that the States (or the Feds, for that matter) have been restrained by case law on Second Amendment grounds. I can't think of any examples. Can you point me to a post where someone has made such a claim?

As for it being a fact, which you distinguished from case law: Justice Clarence Thomas has some things to say about that:

THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY by Andrew M. Wayment

In his concurring opinion in Printz v. United States, Justice Thomas acknowledged this fact: "Marshaling an impressive array of historical evidence, a growing body of scholarly commentary indicates that the 'right to keep and bear arms' is, as the Amendment's text suggests, a personal right."[160]

Furthermore, Justice Thomas speculated that "[i]f . . . the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to the purely intrastate sale or possession of firearms, runs afoul of that Amendment's protections."[161]

Towards the end of his opinion, Justice Thomas made an interesting prediction: "[P]erhaps, at some future date, this Court will have the opportunity to determine whether Justice Story was correct when he wrote that the right to keep and bear arms 'has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."' [end of excerpt]

-- THE SECOND AMENDMENT: A GUARD FOR OUR FUTURE SECURITY

IMO, you should listen to what Justice Clarence Thomas says.

[inquest]

Justice Thomas was commenting on a case regarding federal law. He said nothing about state law.

[tpaine]

inquest wrote:

Justice Thomas was commenting on a case regarding federal law. He said nothing about state law.

All here agree, with Thomas, that our right to bear arms is a fundamental personal right, not to be infringed.

Thus, it defies both common sense & common law to claim that States have been granted the legal power to infringe upon such basic rights.

[Ken H]

Justice Thomas was commenting on a case regarding federal law. He said nothing about state law.

Justice Thomas used the term "personal right to keep and bear arms".

How can there be a personal RKBA if a State or local government can violate it?

[inquest]

You have a personal right to life, too, but that doesn't mean it's the job of the federal government to defend it from the thug who lives down the street from you. But it is required to respect that right in the way it acts towards you.

[Ken H]

You have a personal right to life, too, but that doesn't mean it's the job of the federal government to defend it from the thug who lives down the street from you.

Is it the job of the Supreme Court to protect you from State laws which violate your personal right to life, without due process?

[inquest]

Yes. Due process, however, isn't violated by laws that are universally applied, regardless of how oppressive such laws are, unless such laws are enforced in an improper manner. Hence the word "process".

[Ken H]

Is it the job of the Supreme Court to protect you from State laws which violate your personal right to life, without due process?

Yes. Due process, however, isn't violated by laws that are universally applied, regardless of how oppressive such laws are, unless such laws are enforced in an improper manner. Hence the word "process".

I'm not sure I get your point.

Are you saying that States can violate a personal right as long as they do it to everyone equally?

[inquest]

All I did was answer the specific point you raised, by pointing out that such laws do not violate due process. It's not a question of what they "can" do in some broader sense. That's going to be limited by, among other things, their own constitutions as well as general principles of right and wrong. Not all of those are things that federal courts can take judicial notice of.

[Ken H]

It's not a question of what they "can" do in some broader sense.

It gets back to Justice Thomas' point about a personal RKBA as enumerated in the Second Amendment.

If the RKBA is indeed a personal right as he suggests, can a State infringe that right without violating the Second Amendment?

[robertpaulsen]

Justice Clarence Thomas is entitled to speculate. I'm just telling you the way it is.

"As for case law: I don't recall where anyone has claimed that the States (or the Feds, for that matter) have been restrained by case law on Second Amendment grounds."

I didn't say anyone claimed that. I said that no defendant has ever successfully used the second amendment as protection from some state law. If the second amendment protects a citizen from state gun laws, then where are the cases demonstrating that?

I can cite a half-dozen where the courts have ruled just the opposite -- that the second amendment affords no protection from state laws.

[inquest]

If the RKBA is indeed a personal right as he suggests, can a State infringe that right without violating the Second Amendment?

Yes, because the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to them. These are two completely separate issues you're conflating - how the right is defined by the Constitution, and who's restricted by it from violating that right.