Posted on 11/05/2022 8:50:09 AM PDT by Carriage Hill
Federal judges are not historians, but they are increasingly obligated to play them on the bench. In his Bruen decision last June, Justice Clarence Thomas ordered courts to assess the constitutionality of modern-day gun restrictions by searching for “historical analogues” from 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. Ever since, judges have struggled mightily with this task—in part because most have no training in real historical analysis, but also because the record is often spotty and contradictory. In light of Bruen’s maximalist language, they have erred on the side of gun owners, finding a constitutional right to buy a gun while under indictment for a violent crime, to carry a gun into airports, and to scratch out the serial number on a firearm, rendering it untraceable.
(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So the author would need to define terms as they were understood at the time.
People
keep
bear
arms
infringed
We can assume he knows what “not” means. That shouldn’t be too difficult, even for a leftist.
Case closed.
I would be shocked and amazed if he were not.
Calling somebody’s bluff is a poker term...the thing is that Thomas isn’t bluffing but has facts and law on his side.
Leftist *CLUTCHING PEARLS* nonsense.
stern’s a total lefty. One of his prior articlesfor perspective:
example:
“In other words, courts may no longer rely on empirical evidence in upholding gun control laws. They cannot, for instance, cite the heightened lethality of a particular weapon.”
heightened lethality ?
I’m an engineer, not a grammarian, but I do OK given my background. I’d say my term was accurately descriptive if not technically the best. Thanks for the clarification.
The Left lies reflexively. Heck, from watching HRC & BHO for many years, I’d say they lie even when the truth will do, and they’re not alone.
Minor children do not accrue full rights. They can’t vote, for instance. That’s the whole point of attaining your majority.
Your argument fails.
Thanks…
Hopefully Thomas is aware that early gun laws in America were intended to keep firearms out of the hands of black people.
Anytime in history, if one group wanted to oppress the other, they eliminated their ability to fight back. Early American laws against blacks having guns is a perfect example, but so are the oppressive regimes in China, Nazi Germany...basically take your pick.
2A is designed so the people can protect themselves, from other people but also the government, any level of government which would infinge on freedom.
I like that phrasing, and, unless otherwise regulated, will probably infringe on it (er, steal it.)
I like that phrasing, and, unless otherwise regulated, will probably infringe on it (er, steal it.)
Stooge Carlton Reeves of the Southern District of Mississippi is an Obama stooge.
My God! Who reads Slate other than mentally ill Leftists??
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I do. I hate communism/socialism/leftism with every ounce of my being, but I do read Slate and a number of other abominable publications.
No contest, there.
It’s nine pages, but three of those are footnotes, so it’s really only a 6 page read. It’s worth the time spent (probably less than 30 minutes).
“Minor children do not accrue full rights. They can’t vote, for instance. That’s the whole point of attaining your majority.”
Which seems to mean that “Shall not be infringed” does not apply in all cases and that “of the people” does not mean all the people, only people who have the right.
And if you can find one example contrary to a statement, there may be other examples.
So where else might “shall not be infringed” apply and why not?
So which “of the people” have the right, which don’t, and why?
[SLATE] Bruen exemplifies these problems. Thomas adopted a tendentious and selective reading of the record, endorsing a false narrative shaped by Republican-allied academics funded by gun rights groups like the NRA. He started with the false premise that the Second Amendment created an individual right to bear arms—a right that the court established for the first time in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller—which scholars have comprehensively debunked using originalist tools.
The right to keep and bear arms is not defined in the 2nd Amendment. It was a pre-existing common law right that was and is protected by the 2nd Amendment. It was not a right created or granted by the 2nd Amendment, but a right that existed in the colonies, was brought forth into the states upon independence, and recognized and protected by the Constitution.
U.S. Supreme Court, Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 86, 108-09 (1925)
The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/blackstone_bk1ch1.asp
Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the First - Chapter the First: Of the Absolute Rights of Individuals (1765)
5. THE fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. ft. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.
Precedent perhaps?
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.