Ninth Circuit panel issues stunning Second Amendment ruling

[cabse5]

Here's a few great ones that I've watched:

https://youtu.be/lnSRUHYD5Ts

https://youtu.be/j4m3AJamQYM

https://youtu.be/5IuV7Q9dACM

https://youtu.be/U091Fy4rhMg

Jeeze, I wonder if this Eliza Chavez has ever been to Chippendale's?

 

[TurtleDude]

You didn't answer my questions.

I cannot help it if you don't understand the bill of rights and the difference between the powers of a limited federal government and the much more expansive powers of states that existed PRIOR to the constitution being created.

are you unaware of the entire concept of 14th amendment incorporation?

One of the biggest problems on a board like this is trying to engage in high level discussions about constitutional theory with an audience full of people who don't even understand basic concepts-including the fact that until the period after the civil war, the bill of rights was not seen as being a restriction on the STATE governments. And the CRUIKSHANK decision in the latter part of the 1870s, noted that the second amendment only restricted the federal government.

 

[cabse5]

actually some of us actually are constitutional scholars who have professional training in this area and understand that the second amendment was intended to guarantee the right of free men to be armed. you refuse to answer my question. Does the right -as you see it as originally set forth-apply only after you join a militia? saying it only applies to an entity known as the militia and not the individual members is beyond moronic

Militias aren't needed to 'combat' an obtrusive federal government. Weaponry is provided by, for example, states.

 

[cabse5]

actually some of us actually are constitutional scholars who have professional training in this area and understand that the second amendment was intended to guarantee the right of free men to be armed. you refuse to answer my question. Does the right -as you see it as originally set forth-apply only after you join a militia? saying it only applies to an entity known as the militia and not the individual members is beyond moronic

You realize this is all just rhetoric?

 

[TurtleDude]

Militias aren't needed to 'combat' an obtrusive federal government. Weaponry is provided by, for example, states.

that has nothing to do with the pre-existing natural right that the founders saw as being guaranteed by the second amendment-a right you have yet to even hint you understand

 

[TheGoverness]

Jeeze, I wonder if this Eliza Chavez has ever been to Chippendale's?

I'd wager she's never traveled anywhere outside of her little safe space. [emoji12]

 

[TurtleDude]

You realize this is all just rhetoric?

you realize you are being taken apart piece by piece on this subject and your inability to answer my questions proves to those who actually have training in constitutional scholarship that you do not

 

[cabse5]

Is it taken away in schools and airports? I don't think it is, really.

Explain.

 

[cabse5]

you realize you are being taken apart piece by piece on this subject and your inability to answer my questions proves to those who actually have training in constitutional scholarship that you do not

Temper tantrum?

 

[countryboy]

I cannot help it if you don't understand the bill of rights and the difference between the powers of a limited federal government and the much more expansive powers of states that existed PRIOR to the constitution being created.

are you unaware of the entire concept of 14th amendment incorporation?

One of the biggest problems on a board like this is trying to engage in high level discussions about constitutional theory with an audience full of people who don't even understand basic concepts-including the fact that until the period after the civil war, the bill of rights was not seen as being a restriction on the STATE governments. And the CRUIKSHANK decision in the latter part of the 1870s, noted that the second amendment only restricted the federal government.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest states could usurp rights enumerated in the BOR. Idiotic in fact.

 

[TurtleDude]

Temper tantrum?

nope-destruction of a nonsensical argument that has no basis in fact, If you have actually been on this board for 3 years and a month, you should have realized what you were going to deal with when I started questioning your specious argument.

once again-what was the pre-existing right St George Tucker, the founders, and the CRUIKSHANK court all referred to when it came to the basis of the second amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest states could usurp rights enumerated in the BOR. Idiotic in fact.

Its utterly ridiculous for you to not understand that the bill of rights was intended by the founders only to apply to the new government they had created. If you can find any contrary evidence (I have already cited Cruikshank as proof) feel free to come up with it

are you unable to comprehend that the founders task was creating a new federal government, not trying to modify or restrain the powers of the several states to act within their own jurisdictions?

 

[cabse5]

that has nothing to do with the pre-existing natural right that the founders saw as being guaranteed by the second amendment-a right you have yet to even hint you understand

You won't see the light on this, I see..

Again and again and again. Founders like Madison thought personal ownership of arms was a good idea (maybe a natural right) but when the 2nd was ratified by congress in 1789 and became part of The Constitution, language was changed to satisfy congress and the arms right in the 2nd was passed as a militia right.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest states could usurp rights enumerated in the BOR. Idiotic in fact.

try this-its a simple and basic interpretation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights


maybe if you read this you will stop making assertions that anyone trained in constitutional law will laugh at

The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.

 

[TurtleDude]

You won't see the light on this, I see..

Again and again and again. Founders like Madison thought personal ownership of arms was a good idea (maybe a natural right) but when the 2nd was ratified by congress in 1789 and became part of The Constitution, language was changed to satisfy congress and the arms right in the 2nd was passed as a militia right.

you're either being dishonest or you don't understand what the Second amendment says. It does not say the "right of the militia"

 

[polgara]

Because we don't want to be unique in having a near hundredfold increase in per capita gun homicides over any other country in the developed word ...?

Greetings, Absentglare. :2wave:

Last week, after members of one family were murdered in two different houses in Southern Ohio, the Sheriff told the community to arm themselves for their own safety. Law abiding citizens don't usually kill other people, so I had to agree with his warning. This may have been drug related - I haven't heard - but there were little children involved who never harmed anyone, and that by itself is so sad!

 

[ludin]

Look, I'm just pointing out that the original intent of the arms part of the second amendment dealt with militias. Some care about the original intent of The Constitution (I do) while others (like you) don't.

your original intent is wrong. it says nothing about the right of the militia but the right of the people.
"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.

People make up a militia, so in order to call a militia people have the right to keep and bear arms.
the militia has no rights but the people that make up the militia do.

the only thing it says about the militia is that it is required in order to secure the a free state.
the right belongs to the people not the militia.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm not a gun hater but how does a gun owner explain a right that is taken away in schools and airports, for example?

There is no explanation that i've found. I have challenged them to explain how the legal ethics definition of a right, a legal entitlement granted at birth that cannot be revoked, justifies unfettered access to guns; nothing. I have challenged them to explain why they can assert the second amendment as being unlimited so as to arbitrarily prohibit any restriction that they happen to disagree with; and yet you don't get this magical right until you turn 18.

Their positions are not based on sound reasoning and logic. Their positions revolve around their agenda: to bully anyone who brings up gun control.

 

[cabse5]

you're either being dishonest or you don't understand what the Second amendment says. It does not say the "right of the militia"

Are you another concrete thinker of the wording of an approximately 225 year old passage of words as the 2nd amendment is? Sidenote: That's how the 14th amendment has been so mis-precedented. People read the words and do not investigate the backstory.

 

[ludin]

Greetings, Absentglare. :2wave:

Last week, after members of one family were murdered in two different houses in Southern Ohio, the Sheriff told the community to arm themselves for their own safety. Law abiding citizens don't usually kill other people, so I had to agree with his warning. This may have been drug related - I haven't heard - but there were little children involved who never harmed anyone, and that by itself is so sad!

yep and they found a ton of drugs and other items there as well.

 

[TurtleDude]

Are you another concrete thinker of the wording of an approximately 225 year old passage of words as the 2nd amendment is? Sidenote: That's how the 14th amendment has been so mis-precedented. People read the words and do not investigate the backstory.

few things are more obvious (when one reads the notes and speeches of the founders) that they saw the RKBA as a primary one. Those who want to restrict that right go to all sorts of dishonest lengths to try to pretend that the second amendment was something other than the obvious blanket ban on the federal government having ANY power in this area

 

[Absentglare]

Greetings, Absentglare. :2wave:

Last week, after members of one family were murdered in two different houses in Southern Ohio, the Sheriff told the community to arm themselves for their own safety. Law abiding citizens don't usually kill other people, so I had to agree with his warning. This may have been drug related - I haven't heard - but there were little children involved who never harmed anyone, and that by itself is so sad!

Hey polgara !

I don't mind the idea that people arm themselves. What i mind is the idea that we should only change gun laws in one direction. Every criminal was born a law-abiding citizen. I don't agree with a presumption of guilt, but i do believe that American lives are precious.

 

[Paleocon]

I am not confused. I am fully aware of the difference between binding and persuasive, and the effect of Circuit Court decisions. Let's look at my statement again, shall we?



A ruling by SCOTUS applies nationwide.

A 4-4 split is not a ruling, it's declining to rule.

 

[TurtleDude]

There is no explanation that i've found. I have challenged them to explain how the legal ethics definition of a right, a legal entitlement granted at birth that cannot be revoked, justifies unfettered access to guns; nothing. I have challenged them to explain why they can assert the second amendment as being unlimited so as to arbitrarily prohibit any restriction that they happen to disagree with; and yet you don't get this magical right until you turn 18.

Their positions are not based on sound reasoning and logic. Their positions revolve around their agenda: to bully anyone who brings up gun control.

you seem to labor under the delusion that unless someone is specifically given a right by the government, they don't have it, and UNLESS the federal government is specifically banned from acting in a certain area, the federal government has the power to act

are you unaware of the fact that the intent of the founders was to create a Federal government of limited powers that was restricted from acting in areas where it was not specifically able to cite an enumerated power to do so?

 

[Absentglare]

banoid leftwing gun restrictionists pretend that the second amendment was not intended to serve as a prohibition on the wet dreams Democrat politicians have concerning punishing gun owners for their politics

While i certainly don't agree with you, i can appreciate that you take the time and effort to make your assertions entertaining.