Posted on 09/15/2005 7:12:34 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan
FEINGOLD: Let's go to something else then. I'd like to hear your views about the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. This is an amendment where there's a real shortage of jurisprudence.
You mentioned the Third Amendment where there's even less jurisprudence, but the Second Amendment's close. So I think you can maybe help us understand your approach to interpreting the Constitution by saying a bit about it.
The Second Amendment raises interesting questions about a constitutional interpretation. I read the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to keep and bear arms as opposed to only a collective right. Individual Americans have a constitutional right to own and use guns. And there are a number of actions that legislatures should not take in my view to restrict gun ownership.
FEINGOLD: The modern Supreme Court has only heard one case interpreting the Second Amendment. That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right.
In a second case, in U.S. v. Emerson, the court denied cert and let stand the lower court opinion that upheld the statute banning gun possession by individuals subject to a restraining order against a second amendment challenge.
The appeals court viewed the right to bear arms as an individual right. The Supreme Court declined to review the Appeals Court decision.
So what is your view of the Second Amendment? Do you support one of the other views of the views of what was intended by that amendment?
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I say we fight it out in the streets, winner takes the day. Settled for good until the idiots raise their ugly heads again...It's a cycle, doncha know--I'm ready.
There were no "weapons of mass destruction" at the time of the writing of the Second Amendment. But armies would routinely use fire to force an enemy out of a stronghold. During the civil war, dead animals would be catapulted into strongholds to reduce the habitability of the stronghold through disease and pollution of water. The fact is that no weapon was exempted by the Second Amendment. It protects all arms. If the anti-gunners don't like it, then they should seek a new amendment.
eraser2005 also said: "And there are certain measures, such as registration and mandated safety training, that I can see as not violating the 2nd amendment in any way, so long as the right to own a gun is not violated....
You won't see it as an infringement of freedom of speech to register your books, then, will you? You don't expect to be able to transfer a book to another person without government permission, do you? And make sure that your reading license is renewed on time or the BATFEB (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Explosives, and Books) will send a SWAT team to your home to kill your pets and kids and burn your house to the ground.
Would it change your mind if it was possible to prove that such measures do not benefit the public? Are there gun registration and training requirements in Vermont? Is there any indication that they are the crime capital of the US or that they ever suffered in the slightest degree from the lack of such infringements?
Come to the People's Republic of Kalifornia and buy a handgun. You will need to pay for training every five years, pay to undergo a criminal background check, wait ten days before you can take delivery, pay for a trigger lock or sign an affidavit that you have a safe, and buy a hard case and a lock to transport the handgun home. Make sure that you choose a handgun on the states "approved" list.
Don't even dream of being able to carry this gun outside your home. In most counties of Kalifornia you would have to be a close friend of the Sheriff to get a concealed carry permit.
All of this is why we have virtually no crime in Kalifornia. Yeah...right.
Right. And every judge and legislator with an IQ higher than a turnip knows that as well as we do. Leftist antigun judges and politicians are some of the most brazen liars on this ball of dirt.
I'm busy tonight. What are you doing tomorrow?
Very, Roberts knows all about it.
And, one would hope, to the "defenders of the Constitution" types such as would make suitable Supreme Court Justices.
Roberts has suggested that he has much to learn. He does seem to be an extremely bright guy. If he doesn't "get it" then there is little hope for our nation. It is somewhat comforting that he could see the need for the Supremes to straighten things out due to the conflict at the Circuit Court level.
Well I'm too old and sick to take part in that kind of solution, and it would be hard even for you young bucks to go up against attack helicopters and Abrams tanks with deer rifles and sidearms.
But I think we can beat them in the political arena if all gun owners would just stand together to elect legislators and presidents who understand and respect the intent of the Constitution's authors. If even 1/2 of America's 80+ million gun owners would let it be known in no uncertain terms that they will vote against any candidate who doesn't support the clear intent of the 2nd A no matter what his or her positions on all other issues may be, our full RKBA would be restored in a NY minute.
You're absolutely right - it appears he has at least the beginnings of the kind of nuanced understanding of Miller that could lead to positive results for gun owners.
Apologies to weasels.
Finegold is hypocrite, and as you said, he CAN and WILL (emphasis mine) say anything and doesn't meal he'd vote that way. His big first time campaign spiel was "Nobody's Senator but yours" and he had the cute commercials with "no skeletons in his closet". Yet this sycophant ass-kissing water-carrying democRAT toady has always, always voted along party lines, never minding letters to the contrary written by his constituents (I being one who has written many letters). He is aligning himself as a potential for the oval orifice in 2008 as is the Evil One - the Hildebeast!
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
The only times he doesn't vote with his party are when he takes an even more radical position.
I believe he was the only Senator out of 100 to vote against declaring war on terrorism.
His cutesy ads wouldn't work on a national level. It's a crying shame that Tim Michels didn't beat him. I think any seasoned Republican politician with at least a modicum of reactive smarts would have defeated him last year. Michels let him get away with so many lies when Feingold was ripe for the picking. Trying to take his act national will be a joke, and a losing proposition, although he'd probably have his moments. The best I can hope for now is that he'd give up his Senate seat because Doyle is toast and Wisconsin will have a Republican governor by then.
I like your thinking....Hubby and I were Michels supporters and were very upset when he didn't get him. There are so many sheeples in Madison and Milwaukee that buy his b.s.
I haven't checked my home page for a while, but in case you didn't know, am from Sheboygan County, Wis. I have a few local issues concerning local zoning that I am trying to address before it becomes out of control. It sounds like you are from Wis too, so continue to fight the good fight. The biggest mistake that We the People make is to NOT get involved.
Must get to bed. Had long day. Have a good night.
The Supreme Court didn't hold that a sawed-off shotgun wasn't a militia weapon; it merely stated that the government should be allowed to argue that claim in trial court (where Miller/Layton would be free to offer evidence to the contrary).
The anti-Christian movement that liberals seem so anxious to strengthen, leaves them with a canundrum: How can they subscribe to the founding principle of these United States, namely: "that all men are . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights . . ."? Of course they can't, because they do not recognize a Creator. But, without a Creator, there can be no Creator-endowed unalienable Rights, so liberals must intrinsically reject the Declaration of Independence, and this country's most important founding principle.
Conservatives see the liberal movement as a direct attack on our freedom and our country's future, for it is indeed just that.
Thomas Jefferson states the conservatives' case: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it."
Every top-tier law school in the U.S. has published the "individual right position."
I don't think any of them have a lack of knowledge. It's their reference points and subsequently understanding that differs. Others don't care, because they hold a living Constitution. In that case only their particular ends matter and BS is gathered and formed to fit the con.
Bork saw the right as a community right, essentially the same as the 9th did. Bork claimed the founders tossed in the 2nd to prevent the feds from disarming the States. The commonality in proponents of this claim is that they are first and formost, authoritarians.
Seems like Judge Roberts is passing my litmus tests (sorry, I have some):
1) First Amendment (Hate Speech Laws are Unconstitutional)
2) Second Amendment (It is an individual's ability to carry guns and other weapons)
3) Commerce Clause (Applicable only when there is true interstate *commercial* interest)
4) States' Rights (We are a Federal Republic for God's sake)
Abortion, Marriage, Public School Issues
Any thoughts? Others litmus tests?
I would take the argument even further. Not only does the 2A prevent infringement on our individual right to keep & bear arms, it also includes the right to form into militias to provide for our common defense.
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.