Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
The first battle of the First American Revolution started when a bunch of gun-grabbers in red coats tried to take guns away from private citizens.
Curious Parker amici
US Supreme Court | Oct 24 2007 | US Supreme Court
Posted on 10/25/2007 3:06:00 PM EDT by ctdonath2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1916371/posts
I fear a negative outcome on this case. But for the live of me, I can’t see a better composition of strict constructionist on the Supreme Court occurring in the future. Call me short-sighted, but it seems to me, the best chance we have of a favorable ruling on an individual right to RKBA is right now, with this court.
On the other hand, I really don’t see massive damage coming from SCOTUS overturning the case. The states that protect concealed carry rights and RKBA now have a constituency that demand this right, and it is not likely now or in the near future that those states will abolish those rights. The states that wish to abolish those rights currently have defacto bans in place.
I live in the city of San Francisco, and I can apply for the right to carry concealed until I am blue in the face and it will never happen. If the Supremes overturn this case, I don’t think I will have lost a single thing here in San Francisco.
I’m not hoping to see the case overturned, I’m simply saying the best chance to uphold the case is right now, and the way the anti’s are chipping away at our RKBA, the risk is worth it as we are on our way toward losing those rights anyway.
It seems like now or never to me and I pray for a positive outcome, not only for me but for the freedom of future generations of Americans. To me, guns = freedom. Governments fear guns in the hands of free people, and governments that allow it truly allow freedom for their people.
Yes, but DC is challenging that ruling. It's what the case under discussion is all about.
Who the militia is is irrelevant, the amendment states that the "right of the people" is not to be infringed, not the right of the militia. The preamble states that the right is protected because a well regulated militia is necessary, but the grammar of the sentence does not restrict the right to the militia.
If their was another amendment which read "A well read electorate being necessary to maintenance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" it would not be OK to ban those too young to vote or not registered to vote, who are not part of the electorate, from keeping and reading books.
So what do you think it protects. In your own words would be preferable to those of the Brady Bunch.
Sure, broadcast licenses are like "time, place and manner" restrictions on the first amendment. They can only be used for "deconfliction", not as an excuse to ban some points of view from being expressed. You can't have two stations using the same frequency in the same area. No one's message would get through in that case. Thus the need for deconfliction.
No such justification is available for keeping and bearing. Actually firing, sure, guns are noisy and my right to shoot ends at someone else's ears, among other organs. (Of course that wouldn't be nearly the problem if the government allowed sound suppressors without all the NFA infringements)
Why is it unlikely that he had a CC permit? Are they that difficult to get in CA?
Calling KG9...
What? ...Are they afraid of the competition?
...Last I read, you're six times as likely to be killed by your DOCTOR as you are by an assailant with a handgun. Is that still true?
My doctor has never killed me, but I really hate that test with the rubber glove...
You thought wrong. It protect the right of the people. You have read it, haven't you?
The reason given for the protecting that right is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. But the right is said to belong to the people. The militia clause has been used, wrongly IMHO, to determine the nature of the arms which keeping and bearing of is protected, but only in the Miller Supreme Court case and subsequent cases relying on it.
There were no convicted persons in Miller. The district court had quashed the indictment based on the unconstitutionality of the National Firearms Act. His ruling was appealed by the government, appealed *directly* to the Supreme Court in fact. Banning guns was *really important* to the socialists of FDR's administration.
Bob Shuler and Gene Scott.
Nope. There were no convicts, and the death occurred shortly before the court issued its ruling, not before briefs were filed or oral presentation(s) heard. The plea bargaining took place *after* the court ruled, and it was for probation, not a small fine.
Here's a good Collection of Miller Documents which lays out the whole history of the case, from the indictment to Layton successfully completing his probation.
It’s not what one plays, it’s what gives the grabbers an arguable issue, (the legal definition of arguable, not the lay one) and that damned, unnecessary preamble gives them that arguable issue.
from the article:
Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and history all matter.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
From the 2nd amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Notice the subtle difference...even after stressing punctuation?
The second enumerates two rights.....the collective and the individual...not either or...
Right #1
Collective: the right of a state to raise a well regulated militia
Right #2
Individual: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Shall not be infringed.
Reason:
BOTH are necessary to the security of a FREE state...
In other words...the Dick act violates the second amendment on it’s face...(pun intended) by federalizing and supplanting state militias with federally charted troops(national gaurd)...which are under the sole control of the executive in times of duress...
BTW..OHIO is one of four states to have it’s own navy....serious...
Clearly...the bill of rights enumerates many individual rights....but it also enumerates several collective ones as well...
It really blows anti-gunner minds when I lay them back on the ropes...
The correct premis for the argument isnt collective vs individual...the correct premis is the the 2nd amendment enumerates both...
By not accepting the flawed premis as a basis for arguement...they have to frame their arguement on the correct terms....and that arguement holds no logic...
If the 2nd amendment wasnt collective...there would be no need for the dick act...
If it wasnt individual...it wouldnt contain the phrase “the people”...
The constitution was written so a person who passed the 5th grade could understand it (the common highest grade in the day)...
People forget that the norms of syntax use in our language has deformed over the years...
No one says “four score and seven years”....we say 47...
And people rarely if ever break simple connecting statements down into proper english...
Someone only need read the tenth to understand that half the crap the feds do is unconstitional...and the other half is “extra’ constitutional.....IE:...made up on the spot and justified later...enumerated no where...yet enforced with law...
The best part if to get a pro gunner and an anti gunner together and shut them both up with one arguement...
Of corse the light goes on over the progunner...and the anti-gunner walks off in disgust...but that is to be expected...
The same people that claim a private letter written by jefferson is the basis for the “separation of church and state”..are the same people who ignore the entire bulk of the federalist papers...
Ignorant is...as ignorant does...
try this one on them...
“A well balanced check book, being necessary to the security of a household, the right of the parents to write and cash checks, shall not be infringed’
Write it down...
Now tell me the house has a right to your checkbook and you dont...or that your household could function well for long without it..
*grin*
Be well..
I don't think it's the Constitution that deserves to be damned.
My understanding is that they are pretty much impossible to get in the major urban counties. They do seem to be possible to get in some of the much-more-sparsely populated counties.
On that note, I sure wish packing.org hadn’t imploded.
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.