How many lies?

[legaleagle_45]

Note to Mods... this is legal related!!!!

Here is an article from the Washington Post in which Mayor Fenty and the District's Attorney General Linda Singer explain why DC is appealling Heller...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090300797.html

How many outright lies can you find in their "legal" analysis?

I will start you out:

Another long standing Supreme Court precedent, Presser v. Illinois, establishes that the Second Amendment simply does not apply to state regulation of gun possession and use

This is a lie because... Presser v. Illinois was decided in 1886 at a time when NONE of the Bill of Rights applied to state regulation. At the time Presser was decided the process of "incorporation" whereby the Bill of Rights are made applicable to state action had not begun...That did not begin until early in the 20th century. Yet DC is citing Presser for that proposition EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW IT IS NOT APPLICABLE! It is similar to citing the Dred Scott decision for the proposition that "blacks are not citizens". Yes Dred Scott did say that, but it has no applicability today, just as Presser has no applicability today. That is fraudulent... that is a lie.

That's 1.

 

[Mannix]

From Miller:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time

That says to me that the individual has a right to possess weapons with "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", and a double barreled sawed off shotgun does not meet that requirement.

I believe that means I should be able to own a full auto M4, right?

 

[M_Olson]

emphasis mine:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

and a double barreled sawed off shotgun does not meet that requirement.

actually, i take it to say that there was not enough evidence presented for the court to make up their mind. so they never actually decided if a sawed off shotgun does or does not meet that requirement.

 

[Ieyasu]

The court ruled, though, that banning any "type" of weapon is never reasonable.

From Parker:

The term “Arms” was quite indefinite, but it
would have been peculiar, to say the least, if it were designed to
ensure that people had an individual right to keep weapons
capable of mass destruction—e.g., cannons. Thus the Miller
Court limited the term “Arms”—interpreting it in a manner
consistent with the Amendment’s underlying civic purpose.
Only “Arms” whose “use or possession . . . has some reasonable
relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated
militia,” id. at 177, would qualify for protection.

Thats 2!

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The court said that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes.

Hmmm... I must have missed where it says in Miller that there is no private right to own weapons for one's own purposes. Call that lie #3.

 

[Mannix]

actually, i take it to say that there was not enough evidence presented for the court to make up their mind. so they never actually decided if a sawed off shotgun does or does not meet that requirement.

What I should have said:

That says to me that the individual has a right to possess weapons that can be shown to possess "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", and a double barreled sawed off shotgun does not meet that requirement.

I must remember to drink coffee before checking the forum in the morning .

 

[hugh damright]

I reckon that some folks might consider it a lie to say that the residents of DC have perfectly effective firearms when the law says that they must be unloaded and have trigger locks or be rendered inoperable. But it's real easy to read things wrong with the intent of making someone out to be a liar ... I think DC is saying that rifles and shotguns are perfectly effective firearms and that the residents of DC have them, not that the residents of DC have rifles and shotguns which are kept in a perfectly effective i.e. ready to fire state.

And when they refer to Miller as saying "that the Second Amendment's "obvious purpose" is to ensure the effectiveness and continuation of state military forces (the militia mentioned in the amendment), not to provide a private right to own weapons for one's own purposes ... I think what the court said is that unless it is a militia weapon they have no jurisdiction, which means that they have no jurisdiction over personal weapons for personal use, so didn't they in effect say that the 2nd doesn't cover personal arms for personal use? I don't see the lie ... while the court didn't say "there is no personal right to personal arms", didn't they say that the 2nd doesn't not extend to personal arms for personal use, and thus the question of whether the firearm in question was a militia weapon?

And I don't see why citing Presser is a "lie" ... the part of Presser which they reference has not been overturned, the 2nd has never been incorporated ... maybe the "lie" is when folks use textual analysis to try to prove that the 2nd is binding nationally, as if it was intended to be binding nationally, and was always binding nationally ... and so why not hold up one of the many court cases, like Presser, which proves the textual analysis approach to be a lie intended to reconstruct.

 

[rdhood]

I think that it is interesting that Fenty and Singer felt the need to publish this in the Washington Post just 2-3 days after Heller filed their response. It sounds like they are trying to try this in the court of public opinion before it gets to the SCOTUS.

I have never known an attorney to make public statements like this if they felt that their case was strong. For strong cases, they usually do their talking in the courtroom.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I think what the court said is that unless it is a militia weapon they have no jurisdiction, which means that they have no jurisdiction over personal weapons for personal use, so didn't they in effect say that the 2nd doesn't cover personal arms for personal use?

Surely you understand the difference between saying something and not saying something. The court never said what Fenty asserts they said (the italicized part). There is nothing even similar to that phrase anywhere in Miller.

Let's say I ask a security guard, "Can I take this merchandise out of the store without paying to it?" and point to my cellphone that I carried into the store. He says "Yes." I then tell you "The security guard says that it is OK to take merchandise out of the store without paying for it." Is that a lie? It is closer factually to what was said than what Fenty claimed above.

And I don't see why citing Presser is a "lie" ...

Because Fenty is citing Presser for the notion that the Second Amendment is not incorporated under the 14th; but Presser predates the entire notion of selective incorporation. As legaleagle45 already astutely pointed out, it would be like claiming you can force blacks to sit in the back of your restaurant because Dred Scott already established they don't have the same rights as citizens.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Lie #4

Although gun proponents vigorously insisted that the Second Amendment protects their right to possess and use guns for private purposes, the courts recognized that their view lacks support in its language and history.

Contrary to the assertion here, it is the collective view which is absolutely devoid of support in language and history. Further one can only reach the conclusion that lower courts have recognized only the collective rights view by deliberately ignoring certain cases that postdate Miller but reach a different conclusion (the recent response to petition for cert claim by Heller covers several of these).

 

[Henry Bowman]

And I don't see why citing Presser is a "lie" ...

And because DC argued at the appeals court level that the 2A didn't apply to them because they are not a state. Now they argue that they are "like a state" and the 2A doesn't apply because it has not (yet) been incorporated by the 14A.

I'd call that a "two-faced lie."

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

BAH! All this makes me want to yank out all my hair.

The Second Amendment prohibits government to infringe upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It isn't about WHAT we have the right to keep and bear, it's that government can't infringe upon the right no matter what arms the right encompasses. And, since arms covers any and all weapons as well as armour, there is no need to even pursue that avenue.

Volumes and volumes of any discussion can't obscure the obvious - the obvious being that the Second Amendment PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT. All else is moot.

Woody

Look at your rights and freedoms as what would be required to survive and be free as if there were no government. If that doesn't convince you to take a stand and protect your inalienable rights and freedoms, nothing will. If that doesn't convince you to maintain your personal sovereignty, you are already someone else's subject. If you don't secure your rights and freedoms to maintain your personal sovereignty now, it'll be too late to come to me for help when they come for you. I will already be dead because I had to stand alone. B.E.Wood