Posted on 12/01/2019 3:56:03 PM PST by yesthatjallen
How can there be any argument about the scope of the Second Amendment. The wording of the amendment is crystal clear. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Infringement is the placing of any obstacle in the way of a person owning (keeping) and carrying arms i.e. guns, knives,crowbars, broadswords, nuclear devices or anything else that can be deemed a weapon(arm as in armament). That means no laws, no regulations, no taxes and some et ceteras.
5 to 4
Do we know the author of the exact words and the syntax in the Second Amendment?
The opening line - “A well regulated militia” - has caused more confusion and more legal argument than almost anything else in the Constitution.
My first guess about the author would be Thomas Jefferson, who found great pleasure in condensing the maximum possible meaning into the fewest possible words.
There is a truly beautiful lyrical quality to the Second Amendment, but it created legal disputes that will never end.
LIberals thinks this means mass laws...id didn't. It meant you better know the following commands: Dress right dress.
Forward March
Front rank kneel
Column left march
Prepare to fire
Fire
Reload
etc
etc
etc
The founding fathers wanted you armed with whatever the best weaponry in the world was and know how to do battle. Back in 1770s, men stood in organized ranks (after marching there) and shot at each others ranks until the other broke.
Today that means you should have a select fire (safe, semi, auto) M4/HK416/FN etc, and know small battlefield tactics such as bound and overwatch, L-shaped ambush, withdraw under fire, flanking with support element, EPW search, tactical communications, etc.
Should be an interesting read. I wonder if Thomas will break his customary silence. He's definitely interested in 2nd Amendment cases.
Did you just skip over my post at #8?
For further understanding, if you go back to that post ... at the bottom you can click on the link for a more in-depth opinion.
BTW: On page 2 of that page is my destruction of the ‘myth’ of there being No Automatic firearms when the 2nd was written!
Myth!
I pay for the website that the link is to so there are no pop-ups, (hidden or otherwise) and NO advertisements!
I just started reading through it, and it looks like Sotamayer is trying really hard to argue that the case is moot.
I just read the transcript, The overweight Latino surely does not belong on this or any other court, she should be teaching elementary school. but aside from that, I think this part will be where the State/City loses Big Time and the Court Strikes down a whole host of Gun Control Laws.
“I hadn’t considered the mother or mother-in-law example before. I think that’s going to need to play out in the state courts.”
This is where the Court says NO, We will Decide that.
Yup. Sure did. :-) I wasn't disagreeing with you with my post. I was illustrating what you'd stated. I'll take a look at your site.
Respectfully disagree. There are a limited number of people on the court who want clarity on this issue. I'm not sure if it's 5 or 4 who do. I think this case should give us an indication once it's decided. I just finished going through the arguments. Gorsuch did a pretty good job IMO of trying to pin down Dearing (N.Y. City attorney) on the scope towards the end. As a non-lawyer, it pisses me off how Dearing basically just said, "well all those little issues and corner cases will just have to be litigated through the system." Apparently, he thinks that it is the job of the citizens of this country to provide full employment to lawyers. Our time, effort, money, and anything else you can name simply don't matter to him. How many people can afford five years of litigation like the plaintiffs in this case? Why the heck is it reasonable to assume that they should have to? If a law is vague, it should be summarily struck down. It is the job of the government to write clear, understandable laws, so that we, the citizens, can know what the law is so as to avoid its pitfalls. I kept wanting one of the justices to ask him if he thought the law was somehow a jobs bill for lawyers.
https://reason.com/2019/12/02/new-york-city-which-defended-its-onerous-gun-transport-restrictions-as-necessary-for-public-safety-concedes-they-werent/
The appeal is definitely not moot because NYC stupidly replaced the old law with a new one which retains some of the language of the original about having to travel from a NYC residence directly to a gun range. It just doesn't have to be a NYC gun range anymore. And the NYC lawyer arguing before the Supremes admitted there was no evidence supporting NYC's claim that the new law somehow promotes public safety.
I.e., the new law has some restrictions on the travel of gun owners without any evidence in favor of the restrictions. Heller is clear that bearing a gun is a Constitutional right. Any government burden on exercise of a Constitutional right must be supported by evidence. This law isn't so it is unconstitutional.
A narrow ruling would focus on the absence of evidence by the City. That alone would invalidate most existing gun restrictions, though it wouldn't be difficult for gun banners to fabricate purported evience supporting new laws with the same old restrictions.
What seems to be happening here is a shift by the Supremes away from the old "rational relationship" test for normal legislation to the "give it your best shot or else", aka "substantial evidence", test for legislation burdening a Constitutional right.
That seems to be the underlying issue here - whether the Supremes will require real evidence justifying ANY restriction on firearms rights. Chief Justice Roberts doesn't have much wiggle room here. Any ruling less than that will dramatically harm the Court's "political legitimacy". See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)#
Which in turn might, in these troubled times, take down the federal government's legitmacy as a means of resolving political issues. The biggest examples of those in American history are the Dred Scott Decision and how that resulted in the Civil War.
It helps that Roberts knows that Trump will be re-elected such that, whether Justice Ginsberg croaks next year or not, she will almost certainly be replaced by a Republican appointee who will vote to require gun burdens be supported by substantial evidence. So all he can do in this case is postpone the inevitable. That might get him to act now.
Good analysis of the arguments. Thanks.
I really wish Thomas had broken his normal silence at oral arguments for this case. Though this case is very narrowly defined, (something I understand, though I disagree with the tactic), the decision should be an interesting read when it finally comes out. It is pretty obvious that the liberals on the court were pushing the ‘mootness’ argument very hard. The case is essentially a slam dunk without mootness, and they are really not wanting the likely 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.