Posted on 05/08/2008 7:02:15 AM PDT by NewJerseyJoe
May 5th, 2008; Washington Township, NJ
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact: Robert Kreisler
In a stunning first-of-its-kind announcement, the New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense (NJCSD) predicts that the Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) will confirm an individual right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in Heller vs. DC, foreshadowing an end to decades of acrimonious debate over the meaning of what is widely considered to be a core principle for many Americans.
Using an advanced market research method known as a KJ analysis (named after its creator, Kawakita Jiro) a team of five analysts independently reviewed the statements made by the Justices during testimony in the Heller vs. DC case to arrive at this conclusion. The KJ method was developed as a way to examine complex problems where differing interpretations may exist and has become popular in business for its effectiveness.
The project was conceived and led by Joe Ficalora of SBTI Inc., a Texas-based management consulting firm. This is the first known time such an analysis has been applied to a contemporary legal issue and represents a groundbreaking implementation of this method. “Though we've been painstaking in our analysis, there’s always the remote possibility we may be surprised,” said Ficalora. “However, my experience indicates that the Supreme Court will confirm an individual right interpretation. I’m willing to stake my reputation on this in public, and in front of my colleagues in this industry.”
For many years, anti-gun factions have argued that an earlier decision by the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller established that the 2nd Amendment implied a collective right, meaning that private citizens had no individual right to own or carry firearms for self-defense or home protection.
“We're relieved that the hard facts point to what we've known all along - that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a personal right guaranteed to the American people as our legacy of freedom, preserved for us by our Founders and does not apply solely to the military or National Guard as some mistakenly believe," said Robert Kreisler, President of the NJCSD. “While we don’t mean to be presumptuous by leading the Supreme Court with this announcement, it is important to give America hope that our nation has not swung hopelessly toward socialism and that there are still those who support a traditional view of our Constitution and the liberties it was intended to enshrine through all ages.”
Arthur Rosbury-Yoder, NJCSD’s Executive Director, added, "This is just one example of the out-of-the-box kind of thinking we try to do at the NJCSD. Our organization exists to overcome the fear and ignorance perpetuated by liberals and socialist zealots who appear determined to eliminate our natural rights and by a mass media by a liberal bias against core principles of liberty, especially when it comes to gun rights and self-defense. When was the last time you heard the media put out a positive gun story of any kind?”
The New Jersey Coalition for Self Defense is a not-for-profit organization which has a focus on self-defense and Second Amendment rights. For more information please visit www.njcsd.org or call 877-690-5460.
What I am immensely more concerned about is how they will interpret "shall not be infringed".
The courts have long held that our rights are subject to "reasonable restrictions", such as free speech not allowing for yelling fire in a crowded theater.
I suspect that few will argue that incarcerated felons have a right to keep and bear arms in their jail cells, but I suspect there will be a lot of disagreement over what restrictions can be placed on keeping and bearing arms by law abiding citizens.
Like you, I have always wondered what the phrase “shall not be infringed” means. The Second Amendment is the only place in the Constitution where that phrase appears so it would seem to have significant meaning for the Second Amendment only. Many would agree with reasonable restrictions on our rights, e.g, Freedom of Speech will not protect someone from libel or slander; age and residency requirements to vote, etc. But to me “shall not be infringed” has special meaning for the Second Amendment. But what does it mean? What is an arm? Is it a firearm only, not other weapons? I would guess that in this case the USSC will not address the “shall not be infringed” phrase.
Whoa! This IS stunning. I don't believe the NJCSD has ever been so bold!
Plus, Joe Ficalora of SBTI Inc. (yes, THAT Joe Ficalora) is staking his reputation on it. Doesn't he realize how much he, personally, has to lose making a statement like that if he's wrong?
I'm .... speechless. I'm going to go lie down.
LOL
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
They can uphold it and gut it at the same time. Easy as taxidermy.
Anybody who LISTENED to the judges comments could have told you that. Didn't take any 'advance market research' to figure this out.
Taken as it is written without modifiers it means that everyone is free to keep and bear arms. There can be no interference- by any entity- of that right to possess and carry brass knuckles, tasers, pistols, or thermonuclear devices. Historically that has included any available arms during the first century of the republic and individual citizens did, indeed, own cannons.
If he is wrong we all lose a lot and it will cause considerable contention and strife in the fairly near future.
there should be no restrictions on the type and amount of firearms a private citizen should keep ( note i did not say can keep, but should keep ) the second amendment was written to allow citizens to be able to overthrow a rogue government gone astray. That means that any weapon our military uses, it is our duty to possess also. see tagline
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Legally, does abridged mean the same as infringed? An argument for lawyers but common sense tells me they mean essentially the same, the basic right cannot be abridged, limited, infringed, etc., but some restrictions are allowed, e.g. libel, slander, etc. If that is the case what common sense restrictions would apply to the Second Amendment?
What my gut tells me is that a law abiding person has the right to own a firearm; pistol, rifle, shotgun. Like the Right to Vote, certain persons, like felons, give up their rights based upon certain actions. Not very clear with a lot of gray area. For instance, the Right to Vote has an age limitation. Should such a limitation apply to the Second Amendment and still not be an infringement?
Legally, does abridged mean the same as infringed? An argument for lawyers but common sense tells me they mean essentially the same, the basic right cannot be abridged, limited, infringed, etc., but some restrictions are allowed, e.g. libel, slander, etc. If that is the case what common sense restrictions would apply to the Second Amendment?
What my gut tells me is that a law abiding person has the right to own a firearm; pistol, rifle, shotgun. Like the Right to Vote, certain persons, like felons, give up their rights based upon certain actions. Not very clear with a lot of gray area. For instance, the Right to Vote has an age limitation. Should such a limitation apply to the Second Amendment and still not be an infringement?
Does your tagline refer to the Green Bay Packers?
If he is wrong, everything goes back to the way it was before the lawsuit.
Granted, some residents of Washington, DC won't be too happy, but they can always elect another City Council who will vote their way -- if they have the numbers.
The Court's ruling will be very interesting. I listened to the oral arguments online (I am an attorney, but not a 2nd Amendment expert), and they spent some time pondering whether "keep and bear" is two things or one, and what the phrase means. No attorney responded, as I would have, that "keep" means retain ownership of, and "bear" means carry. Both are essential to the right, as each one alone is empty and meaningless. If I can own a firearm but never use it, what good is the right? And, if I can use a forearm, but cannot own one, I can't even fathom how that would work.
One thing the justices seemed to agree upon was that the "arms" contemplated by the Second Amendment pertained to muskets and pistols, but not canon or other heavier weapons. Who knows how they will apply it to 21st Century firearms? I am betting this will form the basis for an argument against "automatic weapons" being covered by the right. And you can forget about RPGs, tanks, jet fighters, bombs, nukes, etc.
Status quo ante is way to optimistic if the Court gives the green light to the antigunners and we get a Democrat government in November.
Yes, but only through individual due process in a court of law. The fifth amendment reads, "No person shall be deprived ..." We may find a man guilty and take away his fundamental right to liberty by locking him up, but we may not lock up "all those under 18" or "all males".
Also, neither the federal government nor any state government currently recognizes the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right. That may change with this ruling.
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.