FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
That kind of mindset behind policy/judicial decisions is coming from a big city ethnic/cultural/religious perspective that has made incursions into all three branches of government. If you want to protect your Second Amendment rights, you’ll need to do so through the legislature. And elect more of a solid American demographic into the legislature—not those who comprise only about 25% percent of our population and come in such recent generations from southern Europe to reside in our large cities. Or push in advance for another reformation.
This is surprising to anyone?
I'll see your "constitutional originalist" and raise you a "Declarationist", Scalia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism
You see, "Declarationists" are a big problem for so-called "Constitutionalists" who go off the rails and start tampering with Natural Rights, because Declarationists have trump.
One should point out to Scalia that the Founding Fathers actually played that trump card, the card that beats tyrannical, despotic (fascist) governments.
Even in those bastions of liberals like Chicago and D.C., we're seeing changes in the anti-gun attitudes of old. Regular folks are becoming disgusted at not being able to defend themselves from the thugs who don't care about laws.
Regulated=controlled. (think of what a regulator does with gas flow, for instance)
Militia=The Army, in its entirety.
A well regulated (controlled) militia (Army) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Part of the debate over the Constitution was one of whether or not there would be a standing Federal Army. Even the State Militias (armies) were largely not standing (professional) armies. Concerns included whether the Federal Army would be large enough if the State Militias found themselves in conflict in an issue between adjacent (and, at that time, soverign) states, and whether the Federal Army would become an instrument of the abuse of power domestically.
So, not only the question of should there be a standing Federal Army, but how large (if there should be one) should that army be were discussed in the Federalist papers.
The conclusion was this:
That the Federal Standing Army would be relatively small compared to the population, enough so that the State Militias would be able to contain its ambitious use, and the ultimate defense of liberty would be the vast majority of the population armed.
The control of that Army is something the security of a free state depends upon, not just for the defense of the borders and to settle disputes between the States, but to prevent it from being used internally as an instrument to deprive the citizens of liberty. To stay free, the Army had to be contained. In order to ensure the balance of power never shifted away from the People, the People had to be armed.
While the 'state of the art' then may have been the flintlock musket, now it is the select fire weapons of the modern battlefield, along with their companion destructive devices. These are already regulated (infringed) by the NFA. Any further infringement should be thus resisted, in fact, some of those infringements should be rolled back.
The balance of power between the Government and the People has been altered by numerous materiel force multipliers we laud in our mutual defense but will curse if ever used against us by our own military on our own soil. Even the preponderance of numbers our founders counted upon to prevail can be called into question under those circumstances because the addition of air power, satellite and other surveillance, etc., has shifted the balance of power (ultimately, the raw ability to enforce the Constitution) away from the People.
.” said the judge, who is protected by armed bodyguardS (plural) and has the best security money can buy at the expense of the public.
Let’s don’t get over-excited here. When he says, “We’ll see”, that doesn’t mean he would vote for something in particular or not. It just means “we’ll see which side gets 5 votes”. He could be talking about John Roberts!
Also, I have always been in the camp that believes that the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government, not to the states (after all there were states back then with established religions, for instance). So, I don’t take his remarks as a departure, just a realistic appraisal. He doesn’t want to speak to specifics, after all.
or something?
The 2nd Amendment nor any of the so called federal “bill of rights” were designed to apply to the states.
We have Separate & distinct State Constitution’s for that propose, and most free State Constitutions garentee the right to keep and bare arms.
WE HAVE NO NEED FOR WASHINGTON TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH OUR OWN STATE!
Guns were once required for citizens in some areas. Keeps taxes down.
;-)
Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:Why, Scalia? To frighten you and every other functionary of the federal government so that you'll remember who's boss and not slip into bad, old habits of governments around the world and throughout time.
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
FU Scalia!
(never thought I would post that)