ctdonath
Member
Because he wouldn't grandstand? or because he was throwing every alleged "grandstanding" talking point under the bus before the subjects even came up?those that denounce Gura out of hand because he didn't try to grandstand
Because he wouldn't grandstand? or because he was throwing every alleged "grandstanding" talking point under the bus before the subjects even came up?those that denounce Gura out of hand because he didn't try to grandstand
I don't know why some people go so far out of their way to ignore what has been plainly stated in order to read into someone's comments things they have not said. Here's what I said:Consider the development of firearms from single shot black powder from which technology has advanced all the way to miniguns. Are you saying that if select fire rifles were on the shelf people wouldn't buy them?
Getting SCOTUS finally recognize it and establish the precedent is.Establishing an individual right that already exists is not a win.
I am so happy that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, et al. all thought differently.Establishing an individual right that already exists is not a win.
I agree completely.Machine guns have never been common firearms in terms of private ownership. This was true before federal regulation of them, and it is still true. One can reasonably argue that it is more true today because of the federal regs, but the fact is that those regs did not cause them to become UNcommon, because they were never common to begin with.
Quite true. And not at all a position I was contesting. Then again, how many of us wouldn't have at least one RPG in the safe if we couldHowever, because MG's were a relatively new invention (only 16 years had elapsed between the first war fought with them and the ban and the Tommy Gun was a model 1927, IIRC and only 7 years old) it begs the question as to whether the MG ever had a chance to become "common".
You must be a lawyer.And not at all a position I was contesting. Then again, how many of us wouldn't have at least one RPG in the safe if we could
Not even close.You must be a lawyer.
Since I wasn't arguing against your point, I guess you're welcome.But you made my point, exactly!
Thank you, Wineoceros!
I know you weren't, and I appreciate it, too. Thank you very much!Since I wasn't arguing against your point, I guess you're welcome.
Whew! Thank goodness! That was close!Quote:
You must be a lawyer.
Not even close.
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't see how there's any, any, any contradiction between reading the second clause as a... as a personal guarantee and reading the first one as assuring the existence of a militia, not necessarily a State-managed militia because the militia that resisted the British was not State-managed.
But why isn't it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past was not by passing a law against militias, but by taking away the people's weapons... that was the way militias were destroyed.
The two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the Second... the Second Amendment doesn't repeal that.
You don't take the position that Congress no longer has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia, do you?
WALTER DELLINGER: No.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: So it was supplementing it.
And my question is, the question before us, is how and to what extent did it supplement it.
And in my view it supplemented it by saying there's a general right to bear arms quite without reference to the militia either way.
The passage you quoted does not say that the National Guard is not the militia. Guardsmen, when not called into federal service, are a part of the militia. In other words when serving as state guards, they are a part of the militia. (See Perpich v. DOD at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=334)Good point to show that the National Guard (which is a rather recent invention is NOT the militia.)
As I understand it the National Guard is not in any way "The Militia", They are not paid by the state and when called into service are part of the National Armed Forces.
Heres what I don't get. How Gura could not define what "keep" and "bear" mean.
From: http://justicethomas.blogspot.com/Then there is the mind of Thomas... how I could have heard what he was thinking. Perhaps he'll write a book on it some day.
"This is my 17th term and I haven't found it necessary to ask a bunch of questions. I would be doing it to satisfy other people, not to do my job. Most of the answers are in the briefs. This isn't Perry Mason."
http://www.aim.org/guest-column/heller-gun-rights-case-goes-better-than-expected/Scalia asked if permissible limits could restrict you to one gun, or only a few guns, or if a collector couldn't complete a set like a stamp collector because of a quantity restriction, and then launched into a demonstration of his familiarity with firearms by suggesting a need to have a turkey gun, and a duck gun, and a thirty-ought-six, and a .270, which sent Thomas into a fit of off-mic laughter that other observers missed because they were focused on Scalia;
Heres what I don't get. How Gura could not define what "keep" and "bear" mean.
...He said that all of the clerks knew how their respective judge was going to vote on a case the moment certiorari was granted.
So, you can lose at oral, and the briefs mean nothing?