1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Supreme court may hear 2nd Amendment rights!

Discussion in 'Uncategorized Threads' started by Steve-CT, Nov 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    A few things to keep in mind about what the Second Amendment means.

    First of all, it's in the Bill Of Rights. Right after the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech, religion and the right to peaceably assemble. The Bill of Rights, the first Ten amendments to the Constitution are there to guarantee specific, INDIVIDUAL rights


    Also, the Constitution has been called a "living document" meaning, it can be amended and changed, hence the other future amendments, like prohibition, for example.(Volstead Act) before it was repealed. HOWEVER, the BILL OF RIGHTS
    is not part of the "living" document within the Constitution. It is cast in STONE and was not intended to be changed. That's what "INALIENABLE RIGHTS" means.


    I have watched and listened to teachers and others preaching to current generation school kids, that the Constitution is a "living" document and can be changed - WITHOUT emphasizing that the Bill of Rights is NOT, itself a "living document" (they deliberately leave that part out, to desensitize our youth to the meaning and importance of the Bill of Rights)

    Secondly, the verbage of many State constitutions clarifies this further. When the Second Amendment was drafted into the Constitution, it was written in such a way as to capture as much of the spirit of the delegates to the Constitutional convention, each of whom had a slightly different interpetation on the meaning of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms - but overall, it is well documented by our Founding Fathers, the right was intended to be an INDIVIDUAL as well as a collective right. For example, in my home state of Connecticut, the State Constitution reads re: arms:

    "That every man have the right to bear arms in defense of HIMSELF and the State".

    Many state constitutions read similarly.


    Third, you have a plethora of documented statements including those from Washington, Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, and Madison among others all stating that the individual citizen has the right to bear arms; that the individual citizen should have the EQUAL and ultimate check and balance means to protect himself from not only wild animals or ordinary criminals, but moreover - to protect himself and in the greater context, the American society as a whole from TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. That no government would be able to "enslave" citizens, deprive them of their rights, etc.

    In particular, read Madison's Federalist Paper #46

    Along with that intent, there are also dozens of writings from the Founding Fathers stressing the importance of MARKSMANSHIP, firearms use as a regular part of good upbringing and responsibility.

    One must remember the reason why we keep a relatively small active army during peacetime - because the founding fathers saw a large standing army as a potential force that could be used abusively by a tyrannical power.

    As far as the Miller case is concerned, much to do about that case is taken out of context. The Supreme Court did NOT decide in Miller, that "People have no individual rights to own firearms" - they decided that the sawed off shotgun Miller was in possession of had no particular use as a weapon "for the Milita". The case was also won by default because, Miller, had died before the case was heard. And thus, the 1934 Gangster Weapons Act (Nat'l Fireams Act)that caused automatic weapons and short barreled shotguns and rifles to be registered, was not unconstitutional. If I recall the case details correctly, Miller himself was a CRIMINAL and the Supreme Court hearing was not to put Miller on trial (the Supreme Court doesn't do that) - it was to determine the constitutionality of interpreting the '34 NFA applied to one type of firearm.
    (In this case - a short barreled shotgun)

    The antigunners have for decades been misuing that ruling to advance their agenda.

    It will be interesting to see what comes out of this and it will be the true test of how "Constitutional" our Supreme Court really is. If they determine, that individuals have no right - and want to ignore 220 years of established precedent and intent set forth by our Founding Fathers, good luck enforcing it, because there will be millions of people, who will NEVER comply with any surrender your guns orders that may follow such an outrageous and obvious attack on individual rights.
     
  2. Paladin

    Paladin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    4,399
    ACLU policy;

    "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms."


    The ACLU uses the Miller case as a basis for their position of "the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected".

    It's apparent that the ACLU's interpretation of the case is bogus, which isn't surprising.
     
  3. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    stevel -

    Where does it say that the first ten amendments can not be altered or repealed? In that respect, the first ten are no different from the following 17.
     
  4. grunt

    grunt TS Supporters TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,924
    Location:
    Thousand Oaks Ca
    Very interesting thread. Thanks for the information Steve.
     
  5. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    so smokerz, are you telling me that guns should be banned now? Or am I "paranoid" now for knowing, respecting and having had sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States? (an oath I took in 1988 and an oath my late father took in 1943)

    No. The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. Those are the inalienable rights.

    So, you're ok with amending the Bill of Rights to get rid of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, religion, peaceable assembly? Can you amend the 4th amendment right from unreasonable searches and seizures? Can you amend the fifth amendment right to avoid self incrimination? The eigth for cruel and unusal punishment (go to prison for ten years for doing 60 mph in a 55mph zone?)Or maybe the tenth amendment for States' rights? Or perhaps you'd be content with revising the other 17 amendments like the 14th amendment right to Due Process under law?

    To Grunt: Thank you.
     
  6. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Re: "living document" approach - here is Justice Scalia's viewpoint. I don't know what the other eight SC justices have to say about it





    Scalia slams 'living' document philosophy
    Justice draws overflow crowd, protesters at Marquette
    By TOM KERTSCHER
    of the Journal Sentinel staff
    Last Updated: March 13, 2001
    The Constitution is an enduring document but not a "living" one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said in Milwaukee on Tuesday.


    Photo/Jeffrey Phelps
    Judge Scalia holds "The Constitution" that he carries around as he makes a point to Marquette Law students Tuesday.
    Scalia, often reviled as an arch-conservative who would do the nation harm, admitted to a respectful crowd of more than 1,000 people at Marquette University that his "originalist" judicial philosophy is not popular.

    In contrast, the idea of a "living Constitution" in which the meaning can be interpreted as society changes is "seductive," he said.

    But Scalia also insisted that only his approach - interpreting the Constitution based on the Framers' precise words and the meaning they intended at the time - can preserve the Constitution's guiding principles.

    "The Constitution is not an organism," the justice said, "it is a legal document."

    Scalia spoke to 500 people inside Weasler Auditorium and to more than 500 more in an adjacent building in the first appearance of a U.S. Supreme Court justice on Marquette's campus in more than 33 years. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Shorewood native, spoke at a Marquette commencement off campus in 1988.

    Reagan appointee
    Scalia, who was appointed to the high court by President Reagan in 1987, is widely regarded as possessing a surpassing intellect and as being an articulate voice for political conservatism on the court. Although there were no disruptions inside the auditorium, outside more than 100 protesters espousing liberal views chanted anti-Scalia slogans before his 5 p.m. speech.

    Scalia, however, sought to distinguish himself as sitting not on one end of the political spectrum, but as a judge who utilizes a philosophy that seeks to preserve the original meaning of the Constitution. Judges who don't adopt an originalist or "textualist" approach, he said, have no judicial philosophy and issue rulings based on the majority view of society at a given time.

    That "living Constitution" approach, Scalia observed, has led to U.S. Senate hearings in which candidates for federal judge or Supreme Court justice are grilled about which rights they believe are in the Constitution. Eventually, voters will choose and demand judges based not on their ability to interpret the Constitution but on the political positions they hold, he warned.

    "The horrible consequence of that, you understand, is that it places the meaning of the Bill of Rights in the hands of the very entity against which the Bill of Rights was meant to protect you against, that being the majority," Scalia said.

    The protesters bashed Scalia for his votes against affirmative action and abortion rights. They also railed against his vote to stop the manual recount of votes in Florida, which ultimately led to President Bush's election victory over former Vice President Al Gore.

    "He's against civil rights, he's against women's rights, he's against the voters in Florida," said Brian Verdin, 48, of Milwaukee, who wore a skeleton mask and held a sign that read, "Scalia is scary."

    During a half-hour question-and-answer session that followed his half-hour speech, Scalia dismissed one questioner who asked why the Supreme Court decided to hear the voting case, saying the high court generally takes important cases. But Scalia was also glib, joking that with backers of the "living Constitution," "I am left to defend the 'dead' Constitution."

    Scalia's clear aim, however, was to get his audience to care about how judges interpret the Constitution. "Originalists" such as him, he said, are in the minority throughout the legal system.

    Scalia began by saying that an originalist or a textualist takes meaning from the Constitution "from its text, and that meaning does not change." The text itself is augmented only by examining what the Framers of the Constitution intended at the time - not by what a majority in society might prefer today, he said.

    Scalia said that by adopting this judicial philosophy, he is often treated as if he were "eating little babies." But the originalist approach in fact is orthodox, widely held by jurists throughout most of the nation's history, he said.

    Change under Warren
    Only in the past 40 or so years, beginning probably with the ascendancy of former Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren, did judges see the Constitution as an evolutionary document that could be interpreted differently with the passage of time, Scalia said.

    Scalia said he understood why judges, and much of the public, would support the "living Constitution" because with such an approach, the Constitution can say anything you want it to. But this nation was not built on the principle that judges, attempting to gauge the will of society, would interpret the Constitution differently as time goes by, he said.

    The Constitution, Scalia declared, must remain static, but that does not mean that laws cannot change to reflect changes in society.

    The answer for advocates of, for example, abortion rights or the death penalty is to garner enough support from the public and pass laws - not have Supreme Court justices and judges continually revising their views of the Constitution in order to satisfy society, Scalia said.

    "That's flexibility," he said. "What the proponents of the 'living Constitution' want to bring you assuredly is not flexibility; it is rigidity."

    The protesters, who were kept off Marquette property, said they believed they made an impact on public opinion. One of them, Milwaukee attorney Art Heitzer, said, "People are really scared of this court - what it's doing and what it might do."


    Journal Sentinel staff writer Nahal Toosi contributed to this report.




    Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on March 14, 2001.
     
  7. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    A "living constitution" is one that is subject to the whims of contemporary political correctness.<br>
    <br>
    And, could someone please explain why all of the Bill of Rights address INDIVIDUAL rights EXCEPT the Second Amendment, which supposedly addresses a state's "right" to form a collective militia? 'scuse me, but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were not written to enumerate the "rights" of government.
     
  8. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    stevel - **so smokerz, are you telling me that guns should be banned now? Or am I "paranoid" **

    **No. The Bill of Rights is the Bill of Rights. Those are the inalienable rights.**

    You might try actually reading the Constitution. The only "inaliebable" rights enumerated are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and there's some question about those, since we deprive people of those rights in our court system every day.

    Nope, stevel, I never said anything about guns being banned; neither have I proposed any other amendments. Your implication that I have exists only in your warped head.

    What I did point out is your incorrect claim that the first ten amendments are somehow different from the other 17 in that they cannot be amended...and YES, absolutely, your total misreading of what I said, and of the Constitution, demonstrate that you suffer from some mental disorder, probably paranoia. Get some psychiatric help.
     
  9. Bisi

    Bisi TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,399
    Anybody want to play poker with me? I play by "living rules". It's just not fun playing by rules set in stone. Under my "living rules" sometimes my King can beat your Ace.

    Anybody wanna play?

    Bisi
     
  10. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,651
    I'll apologize in advance for a brief interruption of an interesting and serious discussion...

    Am I the only one who finds it not only ironic but profoundly funny that Justice Scalia was addressing an audience of 500 law students in a venue named "Weasler" auditorium?

    sissy
     
  11. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    Time for SCOTUS to step up to the plate and confirm our individual Second Amendment rights.
     
  12. kelly andersen

    kelly andersen TS Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    328
    I heard a guy at the gun shop today say, it's only a free country as long as you do what your told. I'm starting to think he's right.
     
  13. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,251
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    Yeah? Well I say it'd only a free country as long as we have the means to resist tyranny.
     
  14. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    smokerz- go pound sand. You're a pathetic creep who has nothing better to do than "cyber stalk" my posts and hurl personal attacks and insults. If you are a gun owner - you are a sad example of one.

    I take the time to write a cogent reply about an issue as important as the Constitution, the Second Amendment and even took the time to include an article about a currently sitting Supreme Court justice's opinion on "living documents" to be constructive, for your benefit and others and all you can tell me is "i have a warped head" and need "psychiatic" help????

    Hey - take a look in the mirror before asking who needs psychiatric help, you're the same moron who came up with: "were the home invaders (of the Petit family tragedy) armed?"

    YOU need psychiatric help! I'm not the one following your posts and replying with disparaging crap.

    I noticed you chimed in with your digs against me on the ammo cost thread, too.(which I never engaged you in a debate with) BUZZ THE HELL OFF Or, are you too mentally ill to notice other members of this site calling you out on your crap, too?
     
  15. Steve-CT

    Steve-CT TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    524
    Um, I'm not on meds, thank you... but I'd like to know who in your mental institution gave you access to the internet.
     
  16. grnberetcj

    grnberetcj Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,680
    It certainly appears that "smokerz" endured a very long and arduous potty training period!

    Steve...excellent post. It'll be interesting as to the outcome and hopefully the Court will affirm the individual rights that some states/local gov't's want to take away.

    Curt
     
  17. smokerz

    smokerz TS Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    473
    Paranoia is a disturbed thought process characterized by excessive anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Paranoid thinking typically includes persecutory beliefs...

    **smokerz- go pound sand. You're a pathetic creep who has nothing better to do than "cyber stalk" my posts and hurl personal attacks and insults...I'm not the one following your posts and replying with disparaging crap...I noticed you chimed in with your digs against me on the ammo cost thread, too.**

    Textbook example, stevel.
     
  18. incognito

    incognito TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    Brian,

    Then we are no longer free, because we lost the "means" to resist tyranny a long time ago. I have guns, but they are no match to Blackhawk helicopters and Abrams tanks. I'd like to think I'd put up a good fight, but it wouldn't seem like much to the power of the US military.
     
  19. Doctor_Chicago

    Doctor_Chicago Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    209
    Location:
    Chicago and Cleveland
    I will assume that they will decide to hear it Tuesday, November 13th and decide the matter February or March 2008.
     
  20. incognito

    incognito TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    233
    It has long been the policy of the SC not to announce any controversial decision during an election year.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.