I say we make an amendment to abolish the supreme court. It can't be any worse than what we have had in the past.
If he can't come right out and say it's individual, then I'm not prone to trust him.
Noone gets my gun.....period.
Ditto. It "sounds" favorable.
I'm shocked that Feingold claims to believe in the correct 'Indivivual right' interpretation.
Is this just something he says to mollify hunters in Wisconsin?
The Second Amendment is long overdue for a clarifying SCOTUS ruling, one way or the other. The legal "meaning" of that amendment has, if you'll pardon the pun, hung fire for far too long in the courts (though it's perfectly clear to me). Now there is a conflict between two federal circuits--the Supreme Court almost has to step in. If a majority of the court rules correctly on a Second Amendment issue--i.e., for the "individual right" that the amendment plainly confers on citizens--then the precedent has been set, and the gun control movement is out of business for the foreseeable future.
I am also cautiously optimistic. I think he's just trying to avoid any potential media talking points.
I was surprised at Feingold's statements though.
Yes, the libs continue to be totally transparent in their attempt to work EVERY angle to not only castrate the Second Amendment, but to disarm every law abiding citizen, for their own health and well being. That has always been the purpose of the S.A. to provide for the people to protect themselves AGAINST A TYRANNICAL goverment, like the libs want to turn the our Republic into.
A hard socialist state, where abosolute control of everybody and everything rests with a all-encompassing goverment (THEM)...
After reading the article and listening to some of it, he is doing a good job at making the Dems look exactly like what they are ---
The court has not ruled on the 2nd? What about Cruikshank?
Cruikshank stated that the amendment clearly said RKBA could not be infringed by Congress. That was back when the 10th meant something.
My first post here. Long time lurker. Love you guys. Now, on to my comment. the 2nd amendment DOES NOT GIVE us the right to keep and bear arms. It, like the 1st and others, recognizes that we the people have certain rights as human beings which no gov't can give and that's one of them. The clear text of the amendment simply makes it clear that the gov't may not INFRINGE on this right. The original concept of these rights were the right to be free from government interference. To see how far we've gotten away from the whole idea of the constitution, constitutional rights now are seen as right to receive something from government. Sad.
Individual vs. collective? What other article in the Constitution gives "collective" rights? As a matter of fact, NONE of the articles in the Bill of Rights actually "gives" rights to anyone. What they do is deny the Government the ability to interfere with your "right" to those things.
Not true.
"That case is U.S. v. Miller. It was heard back in 1939. And the court indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right."
Total BULL! Miller said no such thing. Miller said (paraphrasing) that short-barreled shotguns were not commonly used by the military, hence were not weapons protected by the 2nd Amendment. It certainly did not maintain that the RKBA is a collective right.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmie.html
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. (Emphasis added.) 307 U.S. at 178."
And even that was wrong. Short-barreld shotguns had been in use.
ping
Big hint to the turdbucket politicans,,,,,The ENTIRE US CONSTITUTION IS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS!!!!!! Think about it. There is very little in it addressing other issues.
I say we make an amendment to abolish the supreme court. It can't be any worse than what we have had in the past.
What a lying sack of Sh*t he is. The Court in Miller did no such thing. The decision went off on the Court's arguably bogus, whole cloth characterization of sawed off shotguns as not a part of the militia's armamentaria and therefore beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment. Moreover, the defendant was not represented in the matter when it was being "argued" before the Court. Just a minor due process problem, dontcha know. Which makes it somewhat odd that the Court saw fit to rule on the matter at all. The main point is, Finegold is a piece of heavy left scum who will say anything, anything at all.
That is a flat out lie. There is no such indication whatsoever in the Miller decision.
The Court merely said that no evidence had been presented to show that the firearm in question had any utility as a militia weapon. The clear implication is that had that evidence been shown to the Court Miller's possession of the short barrel shotgun would have been protected by the amendment.
That evidence was abundantly available, but Miller had died before the case was heard and his lawyer didn't show up in court to submit any evidence at all. Any unbiased reader of Miller will come away with the impression that the court would have ruled differently if that evidence had been presented.
Since Miller many lower courts have knowingly, brazenly misinterpreted the decision, and in practically every case those courts used that misinterpretation to deny Americans their Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
It would perhaps be to much to ask that Roberts be more knowledgeable here. He has only been a judge for about two years, I think. Its possible he has never had a case involving the Second Amendment.
On the other hand, there are only ten articles in the Bill of Rights. One might think that he would have some rather informed opinions if he thought that one of them had been seriously infringed for more than seventy years.
Roberts' statement about Miller strikes me as erroneous. If there had been a "collective rights" issue then one might have thought that the Supreme Court would have refused cert on the basis that Miller had no standing to bring the case.
From US vs. Miller:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
It appears to me that there is no "collective rights" issue at all. "Every male capable physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" might be termed a "collective" but each such individual was expected to arm himself and the Second Amendment prohibited infringement or his right to do so.
Feingold is only sounding pro-gun because he knows that to be openly anti-gun kills the Dems at the ballot box. He's just like 99 percent of the Democrats, who would trash the Second Amendment in a heartbeat. Remember, they had majorities in the House and Senate in 1934 and in 1968. Look what we got, two very bad laws that directly contradict the Second Amendment.