All states in the United States allow citizens to own guns. Your word games aside...
Words are pretty darn important when it comes to discussing law/Constitutional Law. "Right" has a very specific meaning. You can get married in any State in the US, but you don't have a "right" to get married. People throw around the word "right" without making/understanding the distinction. Victim's Rights. There is no such thing, there never was. All the rights in the Constitution that pertain to crime are rights that an alleged criminal/defendent has. Each State is permitted to give it's citizen's additional rights if they so choose. If the State of Alaska wants to establish a State right for it's citizens to have hula hoops, they can do that. If the State of Alaska merely allows you to have a hula hoop it is not a right.
"You asked for the cases they could argue in the USSC and I gave you some."
Don't believe I did. You brought up the USSC nonsense, not me.
"You made an implication that the USSC refused to hear a 2nd amendment case"
I think I said that the USSC chooses what they will hear. I am sure that I did not bring up a specific case they would not hear. I think you like to bend what people say. Put up the quotes when you accuse me of saying something.
"Gun ownership is legal in the U.S. What do you want them to take to the court?" Message 21134363
How else am I to interpret "What do you want them to take to the court?"
I think I said that the USSC chooses what they will hear.
Full text: jttmab: "they would have brought a case to the USSC decades ago"
The USSC decides what they will hear. Not the other way around. This "argument" you put out certainly shows your intentions, but unfortunately for you, it also shows your lack of knowledge (or dishonesty).
Message 21132713
If you're not implying that the USSC has refused a case, then your text has no point. The USSC cannot choose a case that has not been filed. They don't make up cases they want to hear, someone has to submit a case. The fact is that there has not been a 2nd amendment case submitted to the USSC for consideration since 1939 [US v. Miller]. Publically, the NRA has sighted multiple laws that they claim violate the 2nd Amendment: Brady, assault weapon ban, DC handgun ban but they never appeal them to the USSC. 65 years have passed since US v. Miller and the NRA has never found a law that violates the 2nd Amendment that they could appeal to the USSC? Is it therefore your opinion that all the laws since 1939, including those that ban handguns and assault weapons don't violate the 2nd amendment? If so, we have no argument.
Where exactly am I being unknowledgable or dishonest?
From the Full opinion of the Court: supct.law.cornell.edu
"The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. <b<It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [p179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.
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."
The Congress has no current authority to call the "Militia" as it was defined today. That militia has been transformed into the National Guard. Look through the rest of the decision about the requirements that were placed on the militia. One example... "It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months." ---- When was the last time you were mustered?
It's common at this point in the dialogue for you to cite the US Code that defines you as "The Militia" and we're supposed to ignore or forget about all the historic significance that the Framers of the Constitution had for the militia...like the abhorrence to a standing Army...which means you should be in Iraq or Afghanistan right now.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
That's the full text of the 2nd and the word "militia" does appear. The Court interprets the Constitution not only on the full text of the Constitution but also in the context of what the Framers intended which is extracted from various sources, e.g., their letters, law, common law at the time, etc. Even Scalia, the constuctionist, says that the Constitution is to be interpreted based on common law circa 1791. In other words, the Constitution is larger than the document and you'll find from time to time interpretations based on what's found in the Magna Carta. There was a decision within the past year that referred to the Magna Carta, but I don't recall at the moment which one.
But we have a set of people that claim that "a well regulated militia is irrelevant; the intent of the Framers is irrelevant; the abhorrence of a standing Army is irrelevant...nothing is relevant except the words [and only the words] "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Sure, if I ignore everything else it's an individual right. I have a lot of difficulty ignoring everything that the Framers intended. I think they were pretty smart people and I'm not about to toss out what they thought. Maybe you think you're smarter than the Framers, but I'm not.
Nor do I think I'm smarter than the current Supreme Court. Though you apparently think you're smarter than the current Court and you're more able to interpet the Constitution then them .... btw, I think the question will be answered definitively in the USSC when the time is right. Need to get a couple more honest people on the court first. Not the mush mouth liberals who think there job is to write law, not interpret it. siliconinvestor.com
So for the hell of it, you're smarter than the Supreme Court and you know without any doubt whatsoever that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Then let's turn our attention to another section of US v. 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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
So the Court rules that a shotgun has no reasonable relationship to the preservation of efficiency of a well regulated militia. It's not a weapon that is afforded protection under the 2nd. I don't care, probably most people don't care. But it does tell you in general terms what is protected under the second and that would be an arm that "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." I think it's pretty clear that would include a 9mm pistol and an assault weapon. You could regulate such a weapon but not prohibit them, i.e., ban. That would make any assault weapon ban blatantly unconstitutional if and only if the 2nd amendment is an individual right.
But the California assault weapon ban sits there as Constitutional and has declared that there is no individual right to bear arms; the NRA does not challenge it. The longer it sits as unchallenged the more it becomes a precedent. Another district is permitted to site the California decision as a standing valid interpretation. And another and another....If enough districts cite it, the USSC ends up accepting it, defacto. The NRA by ignoring that decision is giving up what you believe is your Constitutional Right. Personnally, if I was an NRA member, I would be pissed.
jttmab |
