Breaking News: SCOTUS takes first 2nd Amendment case since Bruen
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Bzzzt. The Bill of Rights exists to curb the power of the government to usurp our G-d-given rights.
AlexanderA
Member
"God-given" rights, by definition, are not usurpable. In other words, anyone who tried to usurp would be struck dead by the Almighty. And we all know that the world doesn't work that way. This is the fallacy in the whole concept of "God-given" or "inalienable" rights. They can be alienated if we are not ever-watchful. The Bill of Rights is part of this watchfulness. It's the people's attempt to forestall usurpation. Let's forget about this "inalienable" or "inherent" or "God-given" verbiage. It's not helpful in the least. In fact it works against the securing of rights because it introduces a factor of apathy.
"Inalienable rights" (as in the Declaration of Independence) sounds good, but upon reflection, it's garbage. And it was garbage even back in the 18th century. Where was the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for Jefferson's own slaves?
Last edited:
The words do have meaning, and they mean that people have these rights and the government shall not infringe. Jefferson wasn't the first politician to be less than a saint, and his successors have steadily disappointed, but that doesn't alter the language of the Bill of Rights. It's inconvenient to admit that firearms have been misused just like tree branches, bones and rocks, but it doesn't alter the principle that citizens have the right to defend themselves against enemies foreign and domestic.
Except that over the years, laws have denied people that right. Despite all men be created equal, race was used to deny rights. States denied and still deny the rights to carry through permit restrictions and locale bans. Useful guns and equipment for SD defense and defense against tyranny are denied in a growing list of states. Our Congress is functionally useless for gun laws that support gun rights and Scotus dithers on pragmatic issues, coming up with ambiguous principles at times and refusing to clearly decide in real time on issues because of their own internal mystical rules of dominance, precedence or even lack of support for decisive rulings.
The principle has no magical mantra to force it into compliance.
The principle has no magical mantra to force it into compliance.
luzyfuerza
Member
Washington Gun Law describes some of the other "soft" causes of gun possession prohibitions that SCOTUS may address if they choose to proceed to a decision in Rahimi.
Examples might include red flag laws, indictment, addiction to drugs, etc. These "soft" causes of gun possession disability can be based on probable cause or preponderance of evidence standards, may be a result of ex-parte proceedings or of civil procedures that have become customary but have never faced a constitutional challenge,
versus
"hard" criminal findings made to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in a fully adversarial setting.
SCOTUS may even choose to rule on the constitutionality of gun possession disability for non-violent, versus violent felony convictions.
Who knows what SCOTUS will do with this case?
As I mentioned before, practitioners hate uncertainty in the law.
But this is a rare opportunity for an originalist SCOTUS majority to more clearly define second amendment rights in a way consistent with the Founders' intent. Even if they choose to hold these practices where they are, and simply block future creep of gun possession disabilty laws, that's a useful outcome for me.
Examples might include red flag laws, indictment, addiction to drugs, etc. These "soft" causes of gun possession disability can be based on probable cause or preponderance of evidence standards, may be a result of ex-parte proceedings or of civil procedures that have become customary but have never faced a constitutional challenge,
versus
"hard" criminal findings made to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in a fully adversarial setting.
SCOTUS may even choose to rule on the constitutionality of gun possession disability for non-violent, versus violent felony convictions.
Who knows what SCOTUS will do with this case?
As I mentioned before, practitioners hate uncertainty in the law.
But this is a rare opportunity for an originalist SCOTUS majority to more clearly define second amendment rights in a way consistent with the Founders' intent. Even if they choose to hold these practices where they are, and simply block future creep of gun possession disabilty laws, that's a useful outcome for me.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
That's not how it works. Humans have free choice. Once some humans figure out how to get control over other humans they do all kinds of things to them that are contrary to the Creator's wishes. The controlled humans still have free choice to rise up, defend themselves, and reclaim their rights.
Jim Watson
Member
I figure "rights" are like "opportunity", they are supposed to be universal and equal but you really have to claim what is yours or you won't get it. There is no assurance of equal treatment and results.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Outstanding video!
Tom Grieve also has one worth watching, giving an overview of ALL the current gun law cases, at
AlexanderA
Member
Notice that the 2nd Amendment, itself, doesn't use the word "inalienable." It says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." The source of the right, then, is the issue. By the time of the Constitution (and the Bill of Rights), the "magical thinking" of the Declaration of Independence had been eclipsed. The 2nd, in the way it's worded, intimates that the source is the people and not Nature or the Deity.
If I recall correctly, messrs Miranda and Escobedo did not enjoy sterling reputations. The Bill of Rights applied to folks even if they were not pillars of society. Folks were outraged, but the law of the land took priority over shortcuts and misdirection.
I am not sure that referring to any right as "god given" is helpful. That would suggest it is a right enshrined in Christian religious doctrine and there just is no such Christian doctrine.
The fact is that the founders left a lot open ended in the founding documents such as the declaration of independence and the constitution.
The fact is that the founders left a lot open ended in the founding documents such as the declaration of independence and the constitution.
Jim Watson
Member
I think it more a matter of common attitudes, the founders wrote what would make sense to an educated, reasonable man of the day.
We don't have that any more.
We don't have that any more.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Christianity is not the only religion that recognizes a Creator.
Jewish doctrine establishes not just a right to self-defense / defense of others, but an explicit obligation: "If someone is coming to kill you, rise up and kill him first." This applies where an assailant is attempting to murder or rape.
Ignition Override
Member
Old lady new shooter: maybe you knew this.
The Krav Maga self-defense system (I attend twice per week) was first created by a Jewish guy in Slovakia in the 1930’s, because of Jewish people regularly being attacked on the streets.
The Krav Maga self-defense system (I attend twice per week) was first created by a Jewish guy in Slovakia in the 1930’s, because of Jewish people regularly being attacked on the streets.
Last edited:
Styx
Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2014
- Messages
- 3,282
I don't think it's helpful because not everyone buys into religious doctrines. Either way, what the founders, Constitution, and Bill of Rights has to say about gun rights, etc means what the particular judges overseeing a challenge wants it to mean. Judges, whether appointed by a Democrat or Republican, typically already have a conclusion they want to meet before they even hear a case. The only thing they have to do is to connect dots, e.i., find a way to "interpret" case law, the Constitution, and Bill of Rights to mean what they want it to mean.
Anyone who has this romanticized, idealistic, and unrealistic idea in their heads that words have meaning when it comes to all three branches of government are fooling themselves. This is why a lot of plaintiffs like to judge shop.
Last edited:
Shortcuts.
From this defendant's history, he probably should be incarcerated. Instead we put out a piece of paper saying he can't have a gun and can't be within so many feet of someone we think he might kill. Telling a killer he's not allowed to have a gun is a shortcut.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
Actually I did not know that. I only knew it is widely practiced in Israel. Thanks for posting it.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
No doubt referring to the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights as "G-d given" pushes the buttons of some people. But the Declaration of Independence is very meaningful to many, and it says in so many words "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights".
AlexanderA
Member
The Declaration of Independence has flowery words, but it's not a legal document. (That is, it doesn't have the force and effect of law.) And the author, Jefferson, was a hypocrite because the rubric "all men are created equal" with the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" obviously didn't apply to his own slaves.
That aside, calling gun rights "inherent" or "God-given" actually does a disservice to the cause. That's because, if they're "inalienable" or "inherent," it logically follows that we don't have to do anything to protect them. The Deity, or Nature, will step in and do it for us.
All human rights were wrested by people from their reluctant rulers. And it's the people that have to protect them. The only "natural" right is the law of the jungle, where the strong eat the weak.
The 18th-century "Natural Rights" theory is the epitome of "magical thinking." I would hope that we have outgrown it by now.
Amen to that - natural rights theory is just a variant of religion. Looking through history what seems to be how people should behave, social status, 'rights', etc. is a function of some evolutionary biases, culture, economic forces, etc.
nmaahc.si.edu
So much evoking religious principles. The Declaration of Independence was not very inspiring to the African slaves in the Colonies, sorry to say. Each part of the BOR and later amendments are social constructs argued for and against by the context of their times. Today, we try to interpret them in our own personal context. We argue over commas in the 2nd Amendment and what infringed, regulated means based on what our personal beliefs about gun ownership are at the time. Justification is sought for in older texts with words that might have had a different nuance. That's why Clarence's historical test is such a mess, according to both pro and anti gun legal scholars. Some clerk came up with it and he bought it. Instead of direct and clear statements, no remands, etc. we wander into today's mess. If Clarence drops dead - it's a new game in Scotus. Or he is found to be a touch sleazy (too political).
Now let's give some more excuses for Clarence's and Alito's genius in spending time giving the lower courts and Circuits a 'spanking'. While our rights are denied.
The Human Factor of History: Dred Scott and Roger B. Taney
On March 6, 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. John Sanford, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that African Americans were not and could not be citizens.
So much evoking religious principles. The Declaration of Independence was not very inspiring to the African slaves in the Colonies, sorry to say. Each part of the BOR and later amendments are social constructs argued for and against by the context of their times. Today, we try to interpret them in our own personal context. We argue over commas in the 2nd Amendment and what infringed, regulated means based on what our personal beliefs about gun ownership are at the time. Justification is sought for in older texts with words that might have had a different nuance. That's why Clarence's historical test is such a mess, according to both pro and anti gun legal scholars. Some clerk came up with it and he bought it. Instead of direct and clear statements, no remands, etc. we wander into today's mess. If Clarence drops dead - it's a new game in Scotus. Or he is found to be a touch sleazy (too political).
Now let's give some more excuses for Clarence's and Alito's genius in spending time giving the lower courts and Circuits a 'spanking'. While our rights are denied.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
You posted something similar about a week ago, and I explained:
That's not how it works. Humans have free choice. Once some humans figure out how to get control over other humans they do all kinds of things to them that are contrary to the Creator's wishes. The controlled humans still have free choice to rise up, defend themselves, and reclaim their rights.
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,631
You're mixing apples and oranges. The fact that humans are, well, human, means they can make moral errors in thinking.Amen to that - natural rights theory is just a variant of religion. Looking through history what seems to be how people should behave, social status, 'rights', etc. is a function of some evolutionary biases, culture, economic forces, etc.
The Human Factor of History: Dred Scott and Roger B. Taney
On March 6, 1857, in the case of Dred Scott v. John Sanford, United States Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that African Americans were not and could not be citizens.
So much evoking religious principles. The Declaration of Independence was not very inspiring to the African slaves in the Colonies, sorry to say. Each part of the BOR and later amendments are social constructs argued for and against by the context of their times. Today, we try to interpret them in our own personal context. We argue over commas in the 2nd Amendment and what infringed, regulated means based on what our personal beliefs about gun ownership are at the time. Justification is sought for in older texts with words that might have had a different nuance. That's why Clarence's historical test is such a mess, according to both pro and anti gun legal scholars. Some clerk came up with it and he bought it. Instead of direct and clear statements, no remands, etc. we wander into today's mess. If Clarence drops dead - it's a new game in Scotus. Or he is found to be a touch sleazy (too political).
Now let's give some more excuses for Clarence's and Alito's genius in spending time giving the lower courts and Circuits a 'spanking'. While our rights are denied.
And if you're so tuned in to African-American concerns, why do you refer to Justice Alito as "Alito", but Justice Thomas as "Clarence" ?
unclenunzie
Contributing Member
Only to the extent their state decisions (laws) do not violate the US constitution and applicable federal laws.
Similar threads
