Skip to comments.
High court to look at ban on handguns
McClatchy-Tribune ^
| Nov. 9, 2007, 12:18AM
| MICHAEL DOYLE
Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280, 1,281-1,300 ... 1,581-1,586 next last
To: tacticalogic
"What do locked glove compartments have to do with it?"Ask your buddy. He's the one who claimed Judge Ginsburg's ruling on a gun in a locked glove compartment demonstrates her support for an indiviual rights interpretation of the second amendment.
To: robertpaulsen
I’m more inclined to believe you simply misrepresnting what he’s said to waste my time.
1,262
posted on
11/19/2007 12:00:24 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Dead Corpse; robertpaulsen
Very little is beneath Robert....
L
1,263
posted on
11/19/2007 12:02:31 PM PST
by
Lurker
( Comparing moderate islam to extremist islam is like comparing smallpox to ebola.)
To: Dead Corpse
"You were the one to start arguing the difference between "carry" and "bear"."Only because you were arguing the similarity between "carry" and "bear" with your Ginsburg reference.
"More germane to the argument would be "carrying a firearm in a holster" or "bearing them in a vehicle". Either are apropos, interchangeable, and accurate."
That's something you just made up. Ginsburg made no such statement - not even close. Plus, you're wrong.
"If you seek to narrow the definition, you do so at the expense of reason"
Narrow? No, I'm simply defining it. "To bear" is a military term (see my post #1256). "To carry" is not. The second amendment says, "to bear", which is what the Founding Fathers meant to say. If they meant to say something different, like, "to carry" they would have said, "to carry".
To: tacticalogic
He referenced Ginsburg's comments in that case to support his claim that Ginsburg would vote in favor of
Heller. I can look up the link if you like.
Yes, he's wasting your time and mine. You should tell him that, not me.
To: robertpaulsen
I’ll look it up if I have time. Based on what I already know, I’d say you’re probably trying to spin it into something it isn’t and never was.
1,266
posted on
11/19/2007 12:24:44 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: Dead Corpse
If you seek to narrow the definition Plainly that's all he seeks to do.
"well-regulated"? controlled with an iron fist.
"militia"? composed only of those the state chooses.
"security"? never to include urgent unplanned needs.
"free"? applies to states only, not their subjects.
"right"? only insofar as one's state explicitly allows and rp approves.
"people"? only white male landowners need apply.
"keep"? state arsenal will do nicely.
"bear"? only in uniform as the state directs.
"arms"? flintlocks only are fine.
It's not beneath him. It's his MO.
That he turns a "right of the people" into a "power of agents of the state" shows reason expended.
1,267
posted on
11/19/2007 12:29:35 PM PST
by
ctdonath2
(The color blue tastes like the square root of 0?)
To: robertpaulsen
Only because you were arguing the similarity between "carry" and "bear"...
No. Not wrong. Didn't actually think you'd be intellectually honest enough to see how your hairsplitting doesn't help your argument any...
1,268
posted on
11/19/2007 1:18:24 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: tacticalogic
He is. Ginsberg's clarification in the aforementioned case was cited in the Parker/Heller decision. Basically, they found that the differences in "carry" and "bear" were contextual and insufficient to convict someone as that particular law was written.
In essence, since the guy in question didn't have direct access, the prosecutions case that he was "carrying" it could not be sustained. Further, that since he had no direct access to it, that their trying to spin is "bear" instead didn't work either.
1,269
posted on
11/19/2007 1:22:41 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: ctdonath2
That he turns a "right of the people" into a "power of agents of the state" shows reason expended. It shows a level of psychosis that is a little scary to contemplate as walking around free...
1,270
posted on
11/19/2007 1:23:28 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(What would a free man do?)
To: robertpaulsen
in 1982, the 7th Circuit ruled that "arms" do not include handguns, and now the cities of Chicago, Morton Grove, Oak Park, Evanston and Wilmette have used that to ban handgun ownership.
Was the 7th Circuit just applying the settled precedent in Miller? The one where a few Justices decided for all of us that the 2A protects only a collective right? The one I would like to see revisited?
Let me ask you a question...
What would you like to see happen now? The DC Circuit ruling can be left to stand, or the SC can hear it for the reasons offered by either side in the cert petition and cross petition, or they can choose their own reasons to hear it.
All of it is out of our hands now. The DC Court has ruled, and the SC might or might not take the case, and there's nothing any of us can do but to hope for our preferred outcome. I can't tell which outcome you prefer at this point.
So what, if anything, should the SC do with the case(s)?
To: publiusF27
"I can't tell which outcome you prefer at this point."I would prefer the U.S. Supreme Court refuse the case, without comment, and let the DC Circuit decision stand.
If they hear the case I've already given you, twice, the outcome I prefer in posts #1032 and 1052. That outcome is not much different than if they didn't hear the case.
To: robertpaulsen
Right, my bad. At 1032, you said:
I just can't see where there's that much to be gained. I don't want incorporation (for the "interpretation" reasons I mentioned), so that outcome, to me, represents a major loss.
In my eyes, the best they could do is to rule an individual right, but do not incorporate -- that will protect us (and the DC residents) from federal law. But I wouldn't expect the '34 NFA to be touched, or the '68 GCA -- would you?
I think an unincorporated individual right is kind of odd. Apart from your fear of how it might later be construed, is there some reason the RKBA is special, and should not be treated like others in the Bill of Rights?
As to what might fall, would the ban on new machine guns pass strict scrutiny, or the "assault" weapons ban if it were reenacted? I don't think the machine gun one could pass. We used to be allowed to make machine guns, now we're only allowed to have those made prior to 1986. Eventually, all of those will break, and then there will be none. A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?
I think that if they find that the 2a protects an individual right, the idea will have to be that it has something to do with individuals who might join a militia to help defend their society, and who would "appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Our soldiers carry M-16s.
They might want to protect their neighborhoods from lawlessness after a natural disaster, or they might be fighting Chinese troops, or there might be a domestic insurrection of some kind or a threat from the federal army, as the Founders envioned. Mojave seems worried that gangsters will have serious firepower. If there is a war in Aztlan, or whatever the Mexican separatists call the Southwest US, I'm worried that gangsters will be the ONLY ones with serious firepower.
We don't know what threats the next 100 years may bring.
I would like to see them find in favor of the individual rights interpretation and incorporate that decision against the states. I think (and judging by the amici, lots of gungrabbers agree) that the result would be lots of attacks on lots of gun control laws everywhere, many of them successful. I also think it will never happen.
They already missed one opportunity to announce that they would take the case. That means there are not 4 who want to take it. I doubt they will change their minds, nor comment. They will refuse the case without comment.
To: publiusF27
"Was the 7th Circuit just applying the settled precedent in Miller?"Yes, they referenced the 1939 Miller case -- the part where the U.S. Supreme Court in Miller made reference to arms that had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
And the Miller case referenced the 1840 Aymette v. State of Tennessee case where the Tennessee Supreme Court made reference to arms being "any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
Then (and this is the strange part) the 7th Circuit, making a bold assumption based on those cases, concluded that "arms" referred to militia/military weapons! Where in the hell did they come up with that?!
Well, next thing you know, they're saying that average militia/military member doesn't use a handgun for the common defense and, therefore, it's not protected as an "arm". The insanity!
"The one where a few Justices decided for all of us that the 2A protects only a collective right?"
First of all, the Miller Court never did say whether it was a collective right or an individual right. They were silent on that issue.
Second, this is what could happen when only a few Justices decide for all of us what the second amendment protects.
Third, if any court declared a collective right, it was the 1840 Tennessee Supreme Court.
To: publiusF27
"Apart from your fear of how it might later be construed, is there some reason the RKBA is special, and should not be treated like others in the Bill of Rights?"Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.
I've seen what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to the Bill of Rights with their interpretations. I've seen what they've done to religious freedom in this country. We have a one-size-fits-all government, with five justices dictating to us what a 13-year-old can wear on a t-shirt to grade school in Akron, Ohio.
"A complete ban. Will that pass strict scrutiny?"
On machine guns? Yes. On assault rifles? Yes. On assault-style weapons? I doubt it. But none of that will come from this case -- Heller is really narrow.
To: Dead Corpse
I figured as much. I think he could twist a ball bearing in a bucket of grease out of shape.
1,276
posted on
11/19/2007 4:29:22 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: robertpaulsen
Like Scalia, I'm a big believer in original meaning. The Bill of Rights was never meant to apply to the states. I've said it many times, incorporation has done more to destroy federalism that the Commerce Clause can ever hope to. I don't want any of the Bill of Rights incorporated.
Interesting. I never figured you for a Ron Paul supporter. ;-)
Do you want to turn back the incorporation which has taken place, or just stop new incorporation? And how do you square non-incorporation of this particular right under section 1 of the 14th amendment with the finding that it's an individual right? Is it somehow different from the other rights?
To: publiusF27
I think you’ll find his “original meaning” is nothing more than good old-fashioned liberal textualism. For him, Constitutional interpretation is a game of searching for just the right combination of meanings of the words to produce the desired result.
1,278
posted on
11/19/2007 5:44:46 PM PST
by
tacticalogic
("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
To: tacticalogic
Aww, don’t spoil the ending for me, I’m enjoying the story!
I learn more from him than from you, just because I usually agree with you. ;-)
To: robertpaulsen
News on my favorite gun boards is that they will again consider the Parker/Heller matter in private conference tomorrow, with attorneys for both sides present. They say it’s unusual for the lawyers to be at these private meetings.
It suggests to me that they plan to take the case, but not for any reason given in the cert petition or the cross petition. Why else would they want the lawyers at the private conference?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,241-1,260, 1,261-1,280, 1,281-1,300 ... 1,581-1,586 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson