NRA Appeals Seventh Circuit Ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court

NRA-ILA ^ | 06/04/09 | unk

[Mojave]

Properly understood, the Second Amendment does not prohibit a legislature from enacting a law that has neither the purpose nor the effect of interfering with a State’s operation of its militia in accordance with state and federal law. Sounds a lot like the argument Mojave is making, doesn't it?

No, but it does seem to be in synch with the make up and reinvent the law as you go approach you use.

[Cboldt]

Properly understood, the Second Amendment does not prohibit a legislature from enacting a law that has neither the purpose nor the effect of interfering with a State’s operation of its militia in accordance with state and federal law.

-- Sounds a lot like the argument Mojave is making, doesn't it? --

Without knowing what the law in question is, there's no way to assess your speculation. If the law in question has the effect of prohibiting RKBA to a person who is capable of bearing arms, then I take Mojave's argument as objecting to the law, as infringing a state or inherent RKBA.

The collective rights proponents perform their subterfuge by redefining "militia." If a law has no effect on the right of all people capable of bearing arms to keep and bear arms, then it doesn't interfere with a right/power of the people.

You are right about the NRA not being a party to the Heller case. They signed onto an amicus brief, and in that brief they DID point out the language of Presser that I have been harping on. They didn't protect the Miller case.

[savedbygrace]

Then diagram it and tell us what you think it means.

[savedbygrace]

Irrelevant. Your point was that the ‘Founders’ didn’t agree that the 2nd Amendment restricts the States against infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Those quotes disprove your theory.

[Mojave]

“To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.” —John Adams

Local regulations of firearms have historically been a key component to our system of ordered liberties. It only seems “complex” to you because it conflicts with the simplistic falsehoods that you adhere to.

[Mojave]

Those quotes disprove your theory.

Only to the math impaired, history impaired, logic impaired and truth impaired. None of the quotes is about the 2nd Amendment. In fact, all of the quotes are prior to its creation.

[savedbygrace]

So, you’re not able to diagram the sentence, so you can tells us what THE SENTENCE means?

It actually seems to be only part of a complete sentence, as you might discover if you try to diagram it.

You do know how yo diagram sentences, don’t you.

[Big_Monkey]

"I’ve come to realize that the founders actually made a mistake in how they set up the Supreme Court."

Hey, until Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court met in a broom closet in the then-under-construction Capital building. The Founders didn't put a lot of weight into the court, right, wrong or indifferent.

If John Marshall wasn't on the Supreme Court in 1803, this country could look a whole lot different.

[Mojave]

you’re not able to diagram the sentence

You diagram it, if you think you can change its meaning by such misdirection. It's perfectly clear as it stands.

[savedbygrace]

So the, your position is that all of those men changed their opinions between the time they said or wrote those statements and the time they agreed on the wording of the 2nd Amendment?

Are you sure you want to make that accusation against our Founders and early Patriots?

[savedbygrace]

But you can’t tell us what it means, when you separate the main statement from its dependent clauses?

[superloser]

The Framers universally held that state laws were NOT contrary to restrictions to the powers delegated to Congress.

Then came the 14th Amendment which changed the game entirely.

The 14th says, in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thus, if the 2nd Amendment is a restriction on the Federal Government, under the 14th Amendment, it becomes a restriction on the States.

The 14th Amendment supercedes any Supreme Court decision prior to it and nullifies it if that Court decision is in conflict with the Amendment.

Please, peddle your poor arguments elsewhere.

[Mojave]

So the, your position is that all of those men changed their opinions between the time they said or wrote those statements and the time they agreed on the wording of the 2nd Amendment?

Backwards. They didn't say that the 2nd Amendment was a restriction on the states before it was written and they didn't say that after it was written. As Barron notes, they universally held that it did not.

[Mojave]

But you can’t tell us what it means, when you separate the main statement from its dependent clauses?

I've quoted it exactly AND stated its meaning. You have managed neither.

You dare not.

[Mojave]

Then came the 14th Amendment which changed the game entirely.

The cheating started much later and the entire Constitution is not yet changed.

1868 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1878 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1888 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1898 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1908 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1918 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1925 - Incorporation of the 1st Amendment invented. Still no incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1928 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1938 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1948 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1958 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1968 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1978 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1988 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
1998 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.
2008 - No incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

The judicial activism and perversion of the Constitution you desire hasn't happened yet.

[Boogieman]

Obviously not everything in the Constitution is a restatement of natural law, but the 2nd amendment is referring to a right which is an outgrowth of natural law. Therefore, it’s not a right which can be abridged by the federal government, or any other government for that matter.

[Cboldt]

-- until Marbury v. Madison ... If John Marshall wasn't on the Supreme Court in 1803, this country could look a whole lot different. --

Marbury v. Madison doesn't stand for the proposition that most people think it does. In that case SCOTUS declared itself impotent - that it could NOT perform the action requested of it. It found its own powers to be limited, per the US Constitution; and also said that in a contest between the Constitution and legislation, the constitution must be superior.

Cherry pick a quote out of context, and one can make any case stand for the opposite of what it really stands for. See Circuit Courts turning Miller and Presser upside down; and SCOTUS (in Heller) misreading and misapplying their own binding precedents.

You'll find the famous line, "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is" in the blockquote below. But one need only read that paragraph to completion to see the question, as between the constitution and legislation, which is to prevail? The answer follows; the constitution is superior over legislation.

The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable. ...

If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts and oblige them to give it effect? ...

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

You are right though, that had this case turned in the other direction, if legislation was on equal footing and force as the constitution, this country would indeed look very different. The Constitution would have quickly been obliterated. I like the notice in the case that political power is "in its own nature illimitable." Quite true.

[Dead Corpse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

More than enough info and link and the wiki page for it.

[ctdonath2]

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sounds like "incorporation" to me.

[savedbygrace]

You didn't read their quotes, did you? If you had, you would never have concluded that most of them were espousing the view that the tight to keep and bear arms is a right of the people, and a right of the people cannot be restricted by ANY government.

Since they were writing before the Constitution was ratified, OF COURSE they were not going to speak of States. They were still colonies then.

Now you've got me wondering when public schools stopped teaching students how to diagram sentences. They obviously had stopped by the time you made it to elementary school, because you don't know how to do it.

The John Adams quote you posted was on the subject of militias. Here it is completely quoted so it makes sense:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

(A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 3:475 (1787-1788))

He is saying that if you suppose that citizens are to be armed for purposes of a militia, but not allowed to have those arms for private self-defense, or for the defense of towns or other political divisions, then you are in favor of destroying every constitution (that would include State constitutions) so that no man could enjoy liberty and you are in favor of the dissolution of government.

In the second independent clause following the semi-colon, he is putting it in the context of a militia that must be established and operated under the law.