- Joined
- Jul 25, 2014
- Messages
- 9,869
- Reaction score
- 3,495
- Location
- Los Angeles area
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Re: The Second Amendment Goes to the Chopping Block
I can understand why you take such a sulky tone--that kind of defensiveness is characteristic of someone who is not sure of his position. You have good reason not to be.
You wrote this in #44:
"The second amendment has been SHOWN to be a limited restriction of the arbitrary confiscation of arms by the federal government from American citizens who were so named as members of the various militias. THAT ward against arbitrary confiscation is the only thing that the 2nd applies to."
That is not an accurate statement of the law. Your claim that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government's arbitrary confiscation of arms from people who were member of various militias is something like what Justice Stevens argued in his dissenting opinion. As Justice Scalia noted in his opinion for the majority,
Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Apparently you like Stevens' dissenting view, so you want to pretend it, or something like it, is the law. But of course it is NOT the law, or anything even close to it. The Court agreed with the respondent, D.C. special police officer Dick Heller, holding in his favor.
Justice Scalia continued:
"Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to 'keep and bear Arms' in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as the people. We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
.............................................
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
.............................................
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.' (all emphasis added)
I can understand why you take such a sulky tone--that kind of defensiveness is characteristic of someone who is not sure of his position. You have good reason not to be.
You wrote this in #44:
"The second amendment has been SHOWN to be a limited restriction of the arbitrary confiscation of arms by the federal government from American citizens who were so named as members of the various militias. THAT ward against arbitrary confiscation is the only thing that the 2nd applies to."
That is not an accurate statement of the law. Your claim that the Second Amendment applies only to the federal government's arbitrary confiscation of arms from people who were member of various militias is something like what Justice Stevens argued in his dissenting opinion. As Justice Scalia noted in his opinion for the majority,
Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Apparently you like Stevens' dissenting view, so you want to pretend it, or something like it, is the law. But of course it is NOT the law, or anything even close to it. The Court agreed with the respondent, D.C. special police officer Dick Heller, holding in his favor.
Justice Scalia continued:
"Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to 'keep and bear Arms' in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as the people. We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans."
.............................................
"There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
.............................................
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.' (all emphasis added)
Last edited:
eace
