Posted on 03/18/2008 9:25:56 AM PDT by NinoFan
Driving is not a right but a privlige. The 2nd amenment is regarding a right.
Put some water in a metal pipe, seal it well, and put it in a fire and you'll have a bomb. Its timing won't be nearly as predictable as the gunpowder one, but it will still explode rather violently.
Would use of a horse drawn conveyance on a public right of way be considered a right or privilege? If a privilege, when did it become thus? And if a right, why does replacing the horse with a motor turn it into a privilege?
I haven’t heard all of the oral argument, but I’d like one of the justices to ask, “What would it be about people keeping their own arms that would necessarily serve to help a militia be more ‘well regulated?’”
There was really no new information in the oral briefs. You can bet Thomas had already read *all* of the written briefs. We shall hear from his pen I'm sure, hopefully as author of the majority opinion, but if not that surely as concurring with it, and expanding upon it.
I believe that was relied on a bit too much. It was much more restrictive on this issue, and it's clear that the RKBA protected by the second amendment, while related to that of the English Bill of Rights, is not the same thing, being much broader and allowing for virtual no restrictions and was passed for somewhat different reasons. At least someone, Gura I think did mention Story's edition of Blackstone where this was made perfectly clear. Of course that was in several of the Amici briefs as well, so I'm sure Justice Thomas will expand upon that point in chambers
"The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
Those cases, which have not been overturned, speak to the federal government, but recognition as a "natural right" extends down to even municipal laws:
"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
"The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.
In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states very plainly:
"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."
Additionally, there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or limitations on rights belonging to the people:
"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946
"Licensing" or "registration" is a limit, sanction or penalty, because the government can then raise the "requirements" to make the "privilege" unattainable.
And from a "Miller" case:
"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.
I could go on citing court case after court case, but just because government incrementally and imperceptibly usurps basic God-given rights, like travel or RKBA or Free Speech, to the point that even knowledgeable conservatives don't recognize them as rights- not privileges- doesn't mean that those rights are any less Constitutional.
I get really p!ssed seeing supposedly smart people claiming that driving is a "privilege", not a right. Sure, the tyranny of government can make it so onerous on citizens to claim and assert their rights, but that doesn't make those rights any less Constitutional.
Just because some have been bludgeoned with arrests, court appearances, fines, imprisonment, etc. for exercising basic rights- gun ownership, driving without a "license"- does not change the basic facts. Do some research before drinking the socialist kool-aid. You are not required to have a drivers license to drive a car, nor the governments approval to own a firearm. Can you be subjected to major pain for flaunting- or even just asserting- your rights? Sure. The government wants you trained and constrained. They don't want you to think you can go anywhere you want, which ever way you want or own/use any weapons/firearms you want. They want you cowed and bowed, trained to never question your masters.
It cost the Patriots who founded this country and gave us the US Constitution a LOT- many their fortunes and families, and even lives- to assert the God-given rights that they claimed and enshrined in our Founding documents. Don't let their sacrifice and blood be for naught by blindly accepting someone's assertion that "it's a privilege, not a right"! Especially when it's the government feeding you that krapTM!
It may come to the point where we may need to take up our arms to reclaim those rights from a tyrannical government, and everyone should be very knowledgeable about those rights. If everyone had been knowledgeable and had asserted their rights, we wouldn't be in the situation we are in now, hoping that the USSC will pretty-please-with-sugar-on-it, say we DO actually have an RKBA. And we wouldn't be seeing people claiming that "driving is a privilege not a right".
I think this should lay to rest the speciousness of the "driving is a privilege" BS. I won't even get into the stupidity of the "yelling fire/free speech" thing. That is so abysmally absurd that it doesn't even rate a response. Some others have already addressed it here.
Arrg! I mean St.George Tucker's edition of Blackstone.
The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence [fn40] suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. [fn41]
[fn40] The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
[fn41] Whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England. The commentator himself informs us, "that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistence [sic] to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws."
[A separate discussion in an Appendix, specifically about the Second 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.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Of course Story who wrote a couple of decades later also had something to say on the subject:
The next amendment is: "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." {[In Story's Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1840), the following two sentences are also added:] One of the ordinary modes, by which tyrants accomplish their purposes without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offence to keep arms, and by substituting a regular army in the stead of a resort to the militia. The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful, to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.}
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
They went long, grilling both the DC attorney and the US's attorney. I loved it, although Gura, Heller's attorney was way too willing to throw machine guns under the bus, more willing than even Ginsburg, IMHO.
By current court precidence, if the right is found to be fundamental right, then it gets applied to the states via the 14th amendment (I would of course argue that one of the main purposes of the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th did that from day one, but the Courts have not agreed..openly at least.)
I'm sure he was wearing dark pants against the possibility of other liquids leaking out at inopportune times. Maybe even some depends. I'm sure DC's attorney wished he was wearing them, assuming he was not of course. :)
He certainly was at first, but one of the Justices asked him to slow down, and that seemed to steady him somewhat. Although I thought he stumbled a bit at the end, when he was trying to throw machine guns (assault rifles for example) under the bus, and at two, maybe more, Justices were trying to stop him. Even Ginsberg.
It may not be their venue, but summer '08 could put Rodney King and MLK riots to shame- should the Clinton's mishandle their power-grab at the convention. Preacher Hate-Wright is currently getting a pass. This 'pass' is a green light for the masses (mass haters/rioters).
A decision by June would be just-in-time, imo. (Let's see: Hillary steals the primary, gas is at 4.50 a gal. and pastor Hate goes unrebuked. This tinderbox won't even need a match.)
Fortunately for the Korean on the rooftop with his SKS the Supremes will have sanctioned his response. And none too soon.
He's a Supreme Court justice, he's allowed.
Not directly, the Justices will only answer the Question presented, which they wrote. It only concerns some sections of the DC code, not section 922. That's not to say that this case won't be very good precedent for the Supreme Court case which does overturn, 922r.
They were very common though, especially among travelers, on foot, on horseback or in carriages.
This just in-—Private use of diesel engines (trucks & tractors) on private property for commercial purposes (farming) are now under regulation by california air resources board.
You cannot reasonably be expected to direct a bomb as you might an 'arm'. What people want is the right to keep and bear arms, not explosive devises intended to inflict harm beyond what they have targeted.
However, as a group, bombs may serve a purpose when the target may be rich with enemies. In such an instance, the use of such would be more a collective response rather than carried out by individuals who would otherwise be adequately prepared to defend themselves.
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.