Here is our future

[plodder]

Justice Breyer's view of the 2nd Amendment:
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/...ond-amendment-not-the-right-of-an-individual/

"is not the right of an individual to keep a gun next to his bed"

Here is where we are with the probable HRC Presidency. The Supreme Court is now split 4-4 with 1 more Anti 2A awaiting confirmation and HRC likely to pick 2-3 more.

Does anyone know if Supreme Court Justices are afforded Secret Service or other armed protection? Surely the "honorable" Justice Breyer and his ilk would not practice hypocrisy would they?

 

[200Apples]

.
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts." - Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, 1943

 

[230RN]

Gee, I wonder if that could be "interpreted" to mean between my couch cushions, too.

There must be some legal precedent somewhere that bed = couch = trouser pocket.

Terry, 230RN

 

[ATN082268]

It has always been the position of those whose views aren't generally held by the population of this country to resort to using the courts and/or bureaucracies to force others to uphold their views...

 

[Flechette]

This is what I was talking about in a thread a week or go. People are a bit too lackadaisical about how vulnerable we are (even on this website!).

It does not matter if we won Heller if the next Supreme Court overturns it.

Or even more likely, a "reinterpretation" like Justice Bryer's opinion listed by the OP.

People on the left hate many aspects of the Constitution (really) and will not stop at anything to get rid of it. They will argue with a straight face that 2+2=5 if it helps their cause.

How do you argue against that?

The Constitution itself is merely words on paper. It cannot protect us from anything. Unless we have a court system that actually believes in it then we are completely vulnerable.

 

[jack44]

How can anyone take the high court seriously anymore? . It has become a joke! There is no judge who follows the laws or the US constitution anymore.

Sent from my SM-S975L using Tapatalk

 

[Drail]

The Republic is dead.

 

[mnrivrat]

The Republic is dead.

It certainly is drawing its last breath. And I won't be a surprised when the last nail is in the coffen. Damn them all to hell.

 

[X-Rap]

There will be many, probably a majority who won't even notice its passing as we transition to European socialism.
I'm currently working with German that is native to South Africa. He almost speaks glowingly of how civilized German society is and how they must complete training, get permission before they are allowed a gun. Not much different than some on this board who advocate mandatory conditions to gun ownership.
We are but one election away and it has likely already been corrupted.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[larry_minn]

Let's see. Neighbors that have called in true "911 help now". Have ambulance in 20 min and Police in just over 30 "from time of call". This is man with shotgun going crazy. Not bump in night.

They take a oath but either lie, are too stupid to understand, have no personal moral compass. Likely one and three

 

[Flechette]

They take a oath but either lie, are too stupid to understand, have no personal moral compass. Likely one and three

Many are clearly lying.

Justice Ginsburg told an Egyptian television station that they "should not look to the U.S. Constitution" and recommended the South African Constitution instead.

How can we expect someone like this to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States if they openly do not agree with it? Is it a wonder that they "reinterpret" it to mean the exact opposite of what it says?

The fact that she took an oath to uphold it means that she just lied when she took her oath.

Many, many politicians, judges and the like do the same. Integrity means nothing.

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

Hi all-

I might be in the wrong category (if so, mods please move). It's also entirely possible that I missed this someplace else (though I did see a discussion of eliminating the 2A via the means I mention below). These items noted, I offer the following mite to the discussion.

Maybe there's another way to think of this and/or another approach...

What if the 2A were expressed without the first clause, i.e. to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Could not an amendment to the constitution aid in this? While the justices can do what they do, wouldn't such a change make eliminating an individual right much more difficult, by eliminating the clause that Justice Bryer and his ilk appear to depend on for their arguments?

If I recall correctly, 2/3 of the states or 2/3 of both house and senate could create an amendment to the Constitution. Option B, 2/3 (34) of states can call for a Constitutional Convention. Option B hasn't happened with any of the amendments currently in force. This is probably because few if any would be excited about a Constitutional Convention (since that would throw open the whole book - the last one was in 1787), so if a given amendment really had such momentum the Congress would most likely pre-empt by just voting for said amendment. Then you'd need 38/50 states (3/4) to ratify.

Now. About those states. According to Guns and Ammo's rating of best states for firearm owners, Minnesota is #39. I'm not promoting or knocking Minnesota - I'm just saying if it's only 39th best on that list there may be close to enough states to both create a push for such a change to the 2A, and as well to ratify the change.

I'm sure those who actually understand the law better than I (especially in terms of practice) will identify gaps in my thinking, but I think this isn't the dumbest idea I've had today.

Have a great day all.

 

[AlexanderA]

Flechette wrote:

It does not matter if we won Heller if the next Supreme Court overturns it.

The antigun people would not need to overturn the Heller precedent. All sorts of regulations are perfectly consistent with Heller.

All that the case decided was that a person could keep a commonly-used handgun in the home for self-defense, subject to licensing, registration, and any other restrictions that are deemed "reasonable." Simply, the government could not absolutely ban commonly-used handguns. But it could regulate them to its heart's content. This is pretty weak tea when it comes to gun rights.

In reply to those who would like to see the militia clause deleted from the 2nd Amendment (supposedly to help safeguard an "individual" right), I would point out that Justice Scalia already did that, in the Heller decision, by declaring, in effect, that the clause is a nullity.

Actually, the militia clause, properly interpreted, is the strongest part of the 2nd Amendment. (And by "properly interpreted," I mean to say that all adult citizens are automatically members of the militia.) The whole idea behind the 2nd Amendment, and the reason there is a militia clause, is that the civil population is to be as well armed as the standing army. The 2nd Amendment, as originally conceived, was not about hunting, target shooting, or even personal self-defense. These were all simply givens in 1791.

The emasculated version of the 2nd Amendment, promulgated by Justice Scalia in the Heller case, is precisely what the lower federal courts have relied on in upholding all the state "assault weapon" bans that have come before them. Without the militia clause, things like the popular AR-15 rifle (as well as all items now regulated by the NFA) are totally at the mercy of the government.

 

[CDW4ME]

"Shall not be infringed" is clear.
Being on the supreme court should not allow "interpretation" (changing the meaning) to suit their personal views.

 

[jrod]

When is everyone going to understand that the Constitution doesn't give us our Rights. It just states the obvious. These are Rights we are born with as free human beings. "They" can't take them away. "We"can only give them away .

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[wow6599]

"They" can't take them away. "We"can only give them away

+1000

 

[barnbwt]

What if the 2A were expressed without the first clause, i.e. to read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Could not an amendment to the constitution aid in this?

They've claimed that because the word "militia" is somewhere in the text (without regard for where or why it's there) the RKBA can only apply to the militia

They've claimed that "the people" refers to state actors ostensibly operating on behalf of the "the people" alone (the even more moronic "it gives the army the right to have guns")

The language of the constitution no longer matters to people opposed to the very concept of constitutional restraint like our fallen justice Breyer; they believe the document should bend to effect the will of whatever force happens to be the most powerful at any given time. You know, a dictatorship. A 'living document' documents nothing; it is classic Orwellian Newspeak, and suggests reason and logic are not the guiding motivation.

As with all our irrational enemies throughout history (from the Barbary Pirates, to certain American Indian tribes, anarchists, communists, fascists, Bushido, and most recently political Islam) the only solution in the end was annihilation or domination to the point of irrelevance for decades. Not arguing one way or the other as far as tactics or making predictions, but that's what history has shown is the only end for such destructive fanaticism.

TCB

 

[harrygunner]

A reminder, Heller was 5 to 4, but "individual right" was nearly unanimous.

 

[medalguy]

I was in a discussion about gun rights with a Hillary supporter recently and 2A cane up. She made the usual claim that the 2A was put in the Constitution to allow guns for hunting and that "military style weapons" should not be allowed in the country at all. When I asked her where in the 2A or even in the Constitution the word "hunting" can be found, she couldn't respond except to say the framers of the Constitution never envisioned "machine guns" on our streets.

Too often the hunting argument is espoused by folks who are not familiar with guns at all as a reason to ban them or at least restrict ownership. We need to vigorously respond whenever we hear this line. Too many low information voters out there, especially young city types, have no background in guns and would not have a problem with their restriction or ban. Indeed this may be our future.

 

[230RN]

It's hard to have a checks and balances government when all three branches are in cahoots.

 

[phil dirt]

"Too many low information voters out there, especially young city types, have no background in guns and would not have a problem with their restriction or ban. Indeed this may be our future."

If gun owners don't turn out to vote against Hillary, I think it will soon be our future.

 

[macgrumpy]

Debate all you want, the indoctrinated will not even listen to your argument, to them you're just another redneck neanderthal that doesn't know what you're talking about. The intelligentsia was smart enough to take over the education system first - their perception of reality is so disconnected from the real world that you will never get them to see our side. For example, how many people on this very forum believe that the 'Civil' War was all about the rights of blacks.

Talk is cheap, it's getting close to the time that action will be the only way to save our Republic.

 

[barnbwt]

she couldn't respond except to say the framers of the Constitution never envisioned "machine guns" on our streets.

Ask if they could envision bayonets...you know, because they were insistent on banning those, too

The Industrial Revolution where amazing new machines were doing the tasks of dozens of men at one go, where warfare was comprised of large bodies of men acting in unison...and the people of the day couldn't conceive of machine guns (not to mention early manual repeaters were already coming into production). Fiction writers were imagining steam-powered Gundam Robots back in the 1860s --I think a musket that shot twice wasn't *that* far fetched.

The fact there were no restrictions on rifling technology or cannon is far more indicative of their absolutist stance; that stuff was high technology at the time, allowing rifles to shoot accurately farther than ever by leaps and bounds, and far more powerfully too. The fact that smokeless powder was not banned to civilians when it was developed similarly demonstrates that modern norms of restricting new technology to civilians simply did not exist in the public discourse at those times.

TCB

 

[AlexanderA]

medalguy wrote:

I was in a discussion about gun rights with a Hillary supporter recently and 2A cane up. She made the usual claim that the 2A was put in the Constitution to allow guns for hunting and that "military style weapons" should not be allowed in the country at all. When I asked her where in the 2A or even in the Constitution the word "hunting" can be found, she couldn't respond except to say the framers of the Constitution never envisioned "machine guns" on our streets.

I would have loved to have had that discussion. It would be easy to prove to her that she had it exactly backwards -- that the 2nd Amendment was all about "military weapons" in the hands of the population, and had nothing at all to do with hunting. After a short tutorial on American history, she might be forced to change her mind. I find that the more ignorant they are, the easier they are to convince (provided you do it politely, of course).

 

[CB900F]

Gentlemen;

If the Federalist Papers existence were acknowledged in our secondary public education system, we could start getting this situation reversed. But of course it isn't, much less being examined & taught in class. Primarily because the teacher's union's, ie. the NEA & ilk can't stomach the idea of it's existence. For those who aren't aware of the Papers, I'll suggest you do some research.

In short though, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written by committee. The Federalist Papers put forth the thinking of the framers, explaining why they did what they did. See George Mason's writings on the second amendment, as he was vigorously instrumental in creating it as published in the Bill of Rights.

I'm sure he's rolling in his grave regarding the present situation. If you see a ghost advocating a few good funerals, it's probably George.

900F