NYT editorial on the Heller case

[Aguila Blanca]

Statement of purpose is not "limiting" language.

To be fair, it may or may not be. If I say, "For the purpose of relieving terminal pain, heroin may be administered daily.", I may very well have sated both a purpose and limitation.

Mike

But your example is not a true parallel. The 2nd Amendment does not say, "For the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia, the right ..." A more direct analog using your example would have to be something like, "It being recognized that terminal pain is painful, heroin may be administered daily."

 

[zxcvbob]

Originally Posted by The Old Grey Lady
The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns.

A fine example of cognitive dissonance. A court that "respects the text" while simultaneously ignoring it defines obscenity.

You misread it. They are saying they fear that the Court may respect the text. In other words, they want the SC to ignore what it says and give the Govt the broad power to regulate guns.

 

[RPCVYemen]

The 2nd Amendment does not say, "For the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia, the right ..." A more direct analog using your example would have to be something like, "It being recognized that terminal pain is painful, heroin may be administered daily."

I was not attempting to draw a parallel, just demonstrating that a statement of purpose might also involve limitation.

You are correct that the 2nd Amendment doesn't start with "For the purpose of" - I guess that's the issue. The 1st - grammatically speaking - is a model of clarity. The 2nd is at best tortured grammatically.

I have heard before that the a problem with interpreting the 1st section of the 2nd as a statement of purpose or justification is that no other amendment in the BOR includes a justification or statement of purpose.

Other amendments do include limitations and qualifiers: "in a time of peace", "where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars", "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces", etc.

Mike

 

[v35]

...they want the SC to ignore what it says and give the Govt the broad power to regulate guns.

Following their own argument, the NYT should advocate granting government "broad power" to regulate free speech.

Pravda, indeed.

ETA: zxcvbob at first I thought you were being sarcastic but after reading this again, I believe you're right - I did misinterpret it! Their editorial seems to state they want the court to simply ignore the 2A.

It's hard to imagine but the NYT is even worse than I thought.

 

[Intrepid Dad]

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution.

I love how news outlets such as the New York Times insist that the Second Amendment is no longer valid since weapons today are so much more powerful than the ones our nation's founders had. I suppose by that same reasoning we should trash the First Amendment since the Founding Fathers could never have envisioned the Internet. Funny how the NYT doesn't have a problem with that.

I say: Ban the New York Times! It's for the children!

 

[Mannlicher]

America needs a strong, and unfettered Press. What America does NOT need, is the current news media, which is acting as if it were the propaganda ministry for the liberals and lefties.

 

[BamBam-31]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Old Grey Lady
The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns.

A fine example of cognitive dissonance. A court that "respects the text" while simultaneously ignoring it defines obscenity.

You misread it. They are saying they fear that the Court may respect the text. In other words, they want the SC to ignore what it says and give the Govt the broad power to regulate guns.

Actually, if you read the following:

The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

it sounds like the NYT believes the correct interpretation of the 2A's text is in a limiting sense. So they're saying they want the SC to follow what the 2A says and allow gun control. v35 is saying that "respecting the text" means the exact opposite, hence the cognitive dissonance.

 

[george29]

Terrorists and other criminals like NYC. Plenty of Sheeple, no guns. In DC, the Goats (VIP's) have Sheepdog guarding them, apparently, some of the Sheeple got sick of being led to the slaughter. The NY Times caters to Sheeple and those that feel queasy when that nasty 3 lettered word is uttered in public.

GUN ......
GUN ......
GUN ......
GUN ......
GUN ......

 

[RPCVYemen]

it sounds like the NYT believes the correct interpretation of the 2A's text is in a limiting sense. So they're saying they want the SC to follow what the 2A says

This - to me - is a key issue to understand.

There is more than one possible reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The NYT (and 90% of anti's) are not talking about throwing out, shredding or dismissing the 2nd Amendment.

They interpret the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing a right limited by the first two phrase. They would like that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to prevail.

The NRA - I am a member - interprets the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, justified by the first two phrases. We would like that interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to prevail.

In general arguing that the NYT (or 90% of other anti's) are ignoring the 2nd Amendment is only intellectual laziness. But when we are in conflict, claiming that they are ignoring the 2nd Amendment is a strategy for failure.

This battle - at least in the courts - will be over whose interpretation of the 2nd Amendment prevails. It should be interesting to watch.

I can't figure out how the Supreme Court will decide. It would not surprise me to find the strict constructionists and the strict textualists in conflict. I am not sure that the breakdown will be along liberal/conservative lines.

Mike

 

[Halo is for Kids]

The hope, which we share, is that the court will...render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text...The fear is that it will not.

Horay!

The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

Sorry no more sporting arms, Tacticool only.

 

[2Lman]

This case will be an example of why it is important what kind of justices the next president will appoint to the court. Do we get origionalists, who will uphold the original intent of the constitution? Or, do we get the ones who feel that it is a "living document" that will change "as we need it to."

This is the biggest reason that the election is important. We may have Republican candidates who are not friendly to guns, but they have all said that they will appoint justices who see to uphold the original intent. This is the most important.

Also, I am sure that the New York Times is already in favor of restrictions of free speech. They are in favor of restrictions on speech that disagrees with them. Need I say, Fairness Doctrine?

Personally, it looks to me like the second amendment speaks to two separate rights. The militia being the first, and the right of the people (not the government) to keep and bear arms being the second. If you follow the text, the first amendment speaks to many rights of the people, that are not all dependent on each other.

 

[TexasRifleman]

The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

So they agree with us then, we should be able to buy full auto M4s and grenade launchers.

I think it's a great article.

Do they even read what they write?

 

[the pistolero]

For once I'd love to see the people on the editorial board of the NYT on the other side of the table and for some enterprising journalist to ask them, "so what other rights would you throw under the bus for the sake of 'public safety'?"
As for bringing up Walter Duranty, I'd say that's perfectly rational and wholly legitimate. It's not like the shortcomings of the NYT as represented by Duranty's work have been mitigated since he left. The motives of Duranty compared to the Times as an organization may not be the same, but as we see from the Times' latest word-vomitage, they're still presenting a picture that, shall we say, is a wee bit inaccurate.
I've heard the New York Times referred to as "Pravda-on-Hudson." The moniker seems to fit pretty well.

 

[ilcylic]

Texas Rifleman: I thought your point was so wonderful, I stole it.

My letter to the Editor of the NYT.

To the Editor:

Re: "The Court and the Second Amendment" (Editorial, 21 Nov.)

I am pleased to hear that the NYT has such an enlightened opinion on the subject of the Second Amendment. In a political environment so frequently hostile to the private ownership of firearms, to hear such an august and widely-circulated institution advocate that private individuals have an absolute right to ownership of fully-automatic military assault rifles, grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, and light field artillery is truly refreshing.

Quote:
The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

I look forward to informing all of my friends of this endorsement of the true spirit of the Second Amendment by the New York Times.

 

[Fisherman_48768]

My letter to the Editor of the NYT.


Quote:
To the Editor:

Re: "The Court and the Second Amendment" (Editorial, 21 Nov.)

I am pleased to hear that the NYT has such an enlightened opinion on the subject of the Second Amendment. In a political environment so frequently hostile to the private ownership of firearms, to hear such an august and widely-circulated institution advocate that private individuals have an absolute right to ownership of fully-automatic military assault rifles, grenade launchers, heavy machine guns, and light field artillery is truly refreshing.

Quote:
The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

I look forward to informing all of my friends of this endorsement of the true spirit of the Second Amendment by the New York Times.

Hahahaha, love it. Hopefully you won't be charged with homocide when the editioral board has a heart attack once they realize what they really said.

 

[RPCVYemen]

As for bringing up Walter Duranty, I'd say that's perfectly rational and wholly legitimate.

The essence of the fallacy of an ad hominem attack is that it is an attack on the proponent, as opposed to an attack on argument.

The problem is that the argument may still stand, even if the opponent in decimated.

The NYT argument is that the first two phrases of the 2nd Amendment expresses a limitation on the final clause.

Your attack did absolutely nothing to weaken - or even disagree with! - the argument made by the NYT.

Mike

 

[hqmhqm]

Obviosly the author has never read any of the writings of the founding fathers, either. Anyone who ascribes to this collective right bunk is either ignorant or a liar.
__________________

I wonder how many people here have read what the Federalist papers have to say about the dangers of letting your leader get you entangled in a foreign war?

 

[grimjaw]

I have a solution for the NYT. It's from long ago and I've always thought it was the best solution. Sorry this wasn't very high road.

jm

 

[Henry Bowman]

The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

This one word gives away their misinterpretation of Miller (and shows that they have not actually read the case). By using the word "has" instead of the plural "have," they misread Miller as defining the ownership to be related to militia use, as opposed to what Miller actually said. In Miller, the Court said that the type of guns are judged as to whether they are of the type that have a a militia relationship. The Miller decision did not henge on his ownership, but rather on the type of gun.

Intellectually dishonest or ignorant. They can choose which title they prefer.

 

[RPCVYemen]

This one word gives away their misinterpretation of Miller (and shows that they have not actually read the case). By using the word "has" instead of the plural "have," they misread Miller as defining the ownership to be related to militia use

Actually, the subject of the sentence is "the only absolute right", which is singular.

"the right ... have ... a relationship" would be incorrect.

Mike

 

[RPCVYemen]

Obviosly the author has never read any of the writings of the founding fathers, either. Anyone who ascribes to this collective right bunk is either ignorant or a liar.

1. This statement is almost certainly untrue. It is extraordianruly likely that the author has read some writing by some of the founding fathers. In fact, it's pretty likley - given he education level of an editorrialist for the NYT - that the author has read many writngs of many of the Founding Fathers. You can't defeat an argument by making statements that are patently and obviously untrue.
2. Which clause of the Constituion makes the understanding of (some of) the Founding Fathers any more definitive than any other citizen's? The Constitution I read doesn't give th e Founding Fathers any special priveleges. Does yours?

There is a gun subculture that seems to love to troll through the historical writings of 18th century figures, carefully selecting pro-gun statements - or at least statements that when taken out of context, sound or sound pro-gun to modern ears. That seems a relatively harmless hobby, and if it leads to the serious study of American history, probably a good thing.

But I am not sure how compelling the "find a quote from Thomas Jefferson" theory of interpretation sounds to modern Jurists. For example, Scalia is very careful to specify "the whole Congress" in the following:

... most in accord with context and ordinary usage, and thus most likely to have been understood by the whole Congress which voted on the words of the statute (not to mention the citizens subject to it) ...

Mike

 

[the pistolero]

Your attack did absolutely nothing to weaken - or even disagree with! - the argument made by the NYT.

Fair enough. The New York Times' argument is a dangerous one, because it suggests that it's legitimate to infringe on people's rights for the "public safety." Which, it would seem, is the entire reason they're advocating this "collective rights" nonsense -- but again, I would love to find out what other rights they'd infringe on for the "public safety" besides the right of self-defense. As for the editorial board's readings of the Founders, they either didn't understand or agree with what the Founders had to say about the general principles regarding citizens and arms ownership -- which just goes to show that such lofty education doesn't necessarily mean you have a clue about what really goes on outside that lofty ivory tower you make it up into.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Some real concerns from the NYT:

By agreeing yesterday to rule on whether provisions of the District of Columbia’s stringent gun control law violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has inserted itself into a roiling public controversy with large ramifications for public safety. The court’s move sowed hope and fear among supporters of reasonable gun control, and it ratcheted up the suspense surrounding the court’s current term.

The rights recognized by the Constitution are more important than the irrelevant hopes and fears of supporters of "reasonable gun control". That is precisely the contraversy, whether a ban is "reasonable" considering the RKBA.

The hope, which we share, is that the court will rise above the hard-right ideology of some justices to render a decision respectful of the Constitution’s text and the violent consequences of denying government broad room to regulate guns. The fear is that it will not.

Again, what is this silliness concerning fear? Are we to judge all laws based on the fear that they generate? What about the "fear" of unarmed people to crime? Or the fear of gun confiscation? Are we then to repeal the Civil rights act because some people fear Blacks?

At issue is a 2-to-1 ruling last March by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that found unconstitutional a law barring handguns in homes and requiring that shotguns and rifles be stored with trigger locks or disassembled. The ruling upheld a radical decision by a federal trial judge, who struck down the 31-year-old gun control law on spurious grounds that conform with the agenda of the anti-gun control lobby but cry out for rejection by the Supreme Court.

Why is the decision to stike down the law "radical" and the grounds for doing so "spurious'? It is also quite overt for the NYT to label gun rights people as "anti-gun control lobby".

Opponents of gun control sometimes claim a constitutional prohibition on any serious regulation of individual gun ownership. The court last weighed in on the amendment in 1939, concluding, correctly in our view, that the only absolute right conferred on individuals is for the private ownership of guns that has “some reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well-regulated militia.” The federal, state and local governments may impose restrictions on other uses — like the trigger guards — or outright bans on types of weapons. Appellate courts followed that interpretation, until last spring’s departure.

This is an absolute and intentional misquote of US v Miller. Appeals ALWAYS rule on the narrow limits f the previous ruling. The Supreme court ruled of the imposition of a "tax" on a sawed off shotgun that it had deemed not the type of weapon used by a militia, not on the merits of a ban.

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service. What has not changed is the actual language of the Constitution. To get past the first limiting clauses of the Second Amendment to find an unalienable individual right to bear arms seems to require creative editing.

The first part of the 2nd Amendment isn't a limiting clause. The purposeful and misleading interpretation is meant to justify infringement of the RKBA. The next thing they will do is define the "militia" in terms that restrict most people from being in one.

That argument is without merit. The militia consists of All military age males in the country. If you disarm the male citizens of the country with a DC type ban, you have disarmed the militia and violated the amendment anyway. To argue that the militia is only national Guard members, and only when called up, is ludicrous. Why would national Guardsmen need to have a "right" to be armed when on active duty? In a similiar way, if the 2nd Amendment protects the "state's rights to maintain a militia, then every federal gun control law is unconstitutional. For example, I live in Texas, and Texas has a state milita, the Texas State Guard, that is not subject to call up by the federal government and isn't part of the National Guard. The Texas Constitution has a RKBA provision that lacks the preamble of the 2nd Amendment, and no "limiting language" or rather something that can be called limiting language to justify trashing the right. Anyway, it does contain language concerning carry in public. Now why then are automatic weapons banned in Texas? It's not because the Texas Constitution allows it, it's because of federal gun control law. Therefore, the federal law supercedes the State Constitution, and would violate the state "right" of maintaining a militia.

So, even if the preamble to the 2nd Amendment was a limiting factor, no male citizen would be subject to gun control.

 

[cobrian45]

I don't know about you guys, but when I make a list of important things. Most important is #1, followed by next most important #2 and so on. I do think freedom of speech is unbelievably important. I also believe that the founding fathers believed that the second amendment was #2 because it was that important and because the whole purpose of #2 is to protect #1. Writers like this never want to understand that without people like us out here, there would be no repercussions in government officials silencing people like them. Wasn't that one of the main reasons for that silly little Revolution thingy? And I despise the argument of "that will never happen in this country". You should always envision the usage of a law by the worst possible person.

A lot has changed since the nation’s founding, when people kept muskets to be ready for militia service.

I'm sure the founding fathers envisioned porn on the internet being protected by the First Amendment.

 

[TCB in TN]

This statement is almost certainly untrue. It is extraordianruly likely that the author has read some writing by some of the founding fathers. In fact, it's pretty likley - given he education level of an editorrialist for the NYT - that the author has read many writngs of many of the Founding Fathers. You can't defeat an argument by making statements that are patently and obviously untrue.

Well then please explain how exactly you come to the conclusion that this "editorrialist" has read ANY of the FF statements, and if he has then how can he NOT be considered a liar? You seem to be defending either his ignorance or his willful disregard for the truth. While I do not pretend to be a true Constitutional scolar, I have read several commentaries, even from those on the left who have pretty much made the same statement that you take exception with.

There is a gun subculture that seems to love to troll through the historical writings of 18th century figures, carefully selecting pro-gun statements - or at least statements that when taken out of context, sound or sound pro-gun to modern ears. That seems a relatively harmless hobby, and if it leads to the serious study of American history, probably a good thing.

But I am not sure how compelling the "find a quote from Thomas Jefferson" theory of interpretation sounds to modern Jurists. For example, Scalia is very careful to specify "the whole Congress" in the following:

Well perhaps this trolling through the historical writings of the FF might have something to do with the left's insistence that the FF never intended "X", and while I personally believe there is much more to it than just listening to the words of those great men, their own words can certainly put that arguement ((that of their intent) to bed.

Further more, as mentioned above, after reading several recent legal commentaries on the 2A, I would also have to question your opinion about the importance of the writings of the FF, as in those commentaries the FF writings are referenced on many occasions.

Which clause of the Constituion makes the understanding of (some of) the Founding Fathers any more definitive than any other citizen's? The Constitution I read doesn't give th e Founding Fathers any special priveleges. Does yours?

At the risk of stating the obvious the FF did pen the document. They both designed and put it into place. So I don't know exactly why you need a "clause" to confirm this, or to understand how the very fact that they are responsible to its entire creation and were instrumental in its implementation makes them and their opinions expert.