R/E/P Community

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Down

Author Topic: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed  (Read 10238 times)

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:09:02 pm »

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/26/scotus.guns/index.html

The full opinion can be downloaded here.

Heller affirmed - the 2nd Amendment allows the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Quotes from the opinion:
Quote:

 “Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.”

“We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”

“the most natural reading of ‘keep Arms’ in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”

“The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity.”

“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”

“Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.”

“The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”

“It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense.”

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.”

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2008, 12:49:31 pm »

For the dissenting opinion:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”
Logged

J-Texas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2008, 02:32:26 pm »

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 11:49

For the dissenting opinion:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”


That seems about right. How is this hard to believe? The "Framers" were visionaries who came up with a whole system of working government on paper (or hemp or whatever). As much as people have tried to manipulate these ideas, it still survives. I'm glad to be here and not in Cuba or China or...

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people."



Uh, sir, you're going to have to check that.
 Very Happy
Logged
Jason Thompson
www.4141studios.com

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2008, 02:40:09 pm »

Barry Hufker wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 11:49

For the dissenting opinion:

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority “would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons.”

In response to Stephens, Scalia is brilliant with some of his comments, imo:

Quote:

In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petition-
ers and JUSTICE STEVENS propose is not even the (some-
times) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a
hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the
actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an
idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No
dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have
been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried
that meaning at the time of the founding. But it is easy
to see why petitioners and the dissent are driven to the
hybrid definition. Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic mean-
ing would cause the protected right to consist of the right
to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of
the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase
“keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word
“Arms” would have two different meanings at once:
“weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of
“bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying
“He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled
the bucket and died.” Grotesque.


Quote:

JUSTICE STEVENS points to a study by amici supposedly
showing that the phrase “bear arms” was most frequently
used in the military context.  See post, at 12–13, n. 9;
Linguists’ Brief 24.  Of course, as we have said, the fact
that the phrase was commonly used in a particular context
does not show that it is limited to that context, and, in any
event, we have given many sources where the phrase was
used in nonmilitary contexts.  Moreover, the study’s collec-
tion appears to include (who knows how many times) the
idiomatic phrase “bear arms against,” which is irrelevant.  
The amici also dismiss examples such as “ ‘bear arms . . .
for the purpose of killing game’ ” because those uses are
“expressly qualified.”  Linguists’ Brief 24.  (JUSTICE
STEVENS uses the same excuse for dismissing the state
constitutional provisions analogous to the Second Amend-
ment that identify private-use purposes for which the
individual right can be asserted.  See post, at 12.)  That
analysis is faulty.  A purposive qualifying phrase that
contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this
side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some
courses on Linguistics).  If “bear arms” means, as we
think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit
the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-
defense” or “to make war against the King”).  But if “bear
arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the
carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply
cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.”  The right “to
carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game”
is worthy of the mad hatter.


Quote:

It assumes from the prologue that the
Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307
U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews
some historical materials dealing with the nature of the
militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their
members were expected to possess, id., at 178–182. Not a
word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment.
This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent
rests its case.

Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2008, 03:19:03 pm »

The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no idea what society would become in 250 years.  They had no idea how technology would convert their muskets into Glock 9s and automatic weapons.  Basing our laws entirely on the ideologies of 1776 hog-ties us.

Nonetheless, given the government we've had for the last 8 years, I'm not willing to give up my right to personal weaponry.  That part they did get right.

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2008, 03:25:40 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:19

The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no idea what society would become in 250 years.  They had no idea how technology would convert their muskets into Glock 9s and automatic weapons.  Basing our laws entirely on the ideologies of 1776 hog-ties us.

The only problem with that point is that the military has FAR GREATER weapon supremacy now than ever before relative to the common man.

Besides, if we are attacked and are needing to defend our country, do you want a musket or an AR-15 rifle? The world changes, sure, but the brilliance of the constitution is that is remains relevant...
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2008, 03:42:32 pm »

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 12:25

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:19

The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no idea what society would become in 250 years.  They had no idea how technology would convert their muskets into Glock 9s and automatic weapons.  Basing our laws entirely on the ideologies of 1776 hog-ties us.

The only problem with that point is that the military has FAR GREATER weapon supremacy now than ever before relative to the common man.

Besides, if we are attacked and are needing to defend our country, do you want a musket or an AR-15 rifle? The world changes, sure, but the brilliance of the constitution is that is remains relevant...
The military are US citizens, too.  And pretty fed up with the politicization of the military if I'm not mistaken.  And don't forget the lesson of Afghanistan and Iraq: low-tech can sometimes defeat high-tech.

Our street gangs don't deserve the right to carry military weapons.


bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2008, 03:46:04 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:42

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 12:25

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:19

The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no idea what society would become in 250 years.  They had no idea how technology would convert their muskets into Glock 9s and automatic weapons.  Basing our laws entirely on the ideologies of 1776 hog-ties us.

The only problem with that point is that the military has FAR GREATER weapon supremacy now than ever before relative to the common man.

Besides, if we are attacked and are needing to defend our country, do you want a musket or an AR-15 rifle? The world changes, sure, but the brilliance of the constitution is that is remains relevant...
The military are US citizens, too.  And pretty fed up with the politicization of the military if I'm not mistaken.  And don't forget the lesson of Afghanistan and Iraq: low-tech can sometimes defeat high-tech.

Indeed - we're in total agreement. My point is that these modern weapons our founding fathers couldn't have envisioned don't change anything.

And FWIW, Afghanistan and Iraq are full of the weapons that were on the expired AWB. Not exactly muskets.
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

JDNelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2008, 03:46:51 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 12:19

The reality is that the framers of the Constitution had no idea what society would become in 250 years.  They had no idea how technology would convert their muskets into Glock 9s and automatic weapons.

Those breech loaders were effective enough to kill poor Alexander Hamilton (just ask Aaron Burr)...

J-Texas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1212
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2008, 04:09:37 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:42



Our street gangs don't deserve the right to carry military weapons.





With all respect, Jay... our street gangs will acquire any weapon they desire. Without permission. That argument is not at all legitimate to me.  
Logged
Jason Thompson
www.4141studios.com

bblackwood

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7036
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2008, 04:41:13 pm »

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:42

Our street gangs don't deserve the right to carry military weapons.

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." - Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano
Logged
Brad Blackwood
euphonic masters

JDNelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 997
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2008, 05:37:59 pm »

Have any of you guys looked into Tazers for security (non lethal) at your studios?  I was on an airline flight recently and the guy next to me was a gun enthusiast... we got to talking... he said he wouldn't give his wife a firearm for self-protection, because it could always be taken away and used against her by the intruder.  He thought a Tazer was a better alternative for folks who hadn't had firearms training.

Another thing he said (which struck me as funny, strange) was that in his experience thugs are more afraid of Tazers than guns.  It's apparently a macho thing...

Barry Hufker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8228
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #12 on: June 26, 2008, 06:17:13 pm »

The "we're gonna be attacked so we need our guns" and "if we outlaw guns only the criminals will have guns" are two of the most tired and ridiculous arguments.  And anyone who argues against gun locks when most gun accidents happen at home killing children should have no right to own a gun.

And I'm amazed when Christians say they need their guns.  Which caliber did Jesus carry.  Oh... He said, "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword".  And he said that when Peter hacked off the servant's ear.  I don't recall Jesus demanding greater access to weapons.

But it comes down to faith and trust, that's why it always kills me (pun intended) that conservative Christians want to keep shoving money at the military and the latest weapons.  Whom do they trust and in what do they trust?  Apparently God can't save them so they have to own a gun and must have the latest deadly weapon.  Now, let me think... David owned a slingshot... that's a weapon.  After all he had to defend his flock from wolves (hmmm... very symbolic of Christ defending his people) and David went forth to kill Goliath because he trusted in God and not his slingshot. Now all the soldiers who only trusted in their weapons were too afraid to meet Goliath.

How about the M16 Daniel used in the lions' den...  How about the artillery Joshua used to destroy Jericho... yep that Bible says every damn person out to own as many fucking guns as they can.  That's because they's all gonna kill them a criminal or a terrorist.

Let me tell you that if we need our guns because we're fighting terrorists in the streets then all our fucking weapons used by the most powerful army in the world didn't do us much good, so the pea-shooter you own is certainly going to turn the tide.

I'm sorry for being snide but this gun thing gets so tiresome.  Hunt if you want.  Own a rifle if you want but a semi-automatic weapon or a hand gun has only one purpose - to kill a human being.



Logged

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #13 on: June 26, 2008, 06:26:13 pm »

bblackwood wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 13:41

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:42

Our street gangs don't deserve the right to carry military weapons.

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." - Sammy 'The Bull' Gravano

In a civilized society there is a police department to deal with Sammy, it's not your job or mine.  Nowhere have I advocated "gun control."  But does every citizen need an assault weapon?  It is not an all-or-none proposition here.  How about some limits?

Of course outlaws will break any law (that's why they're called outlaws.)  But if guns didn't pervade society we wouldn't all feel the need for them.

Jay Kadis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2165
Re: SCOTUS: Heller affirmed
« Reply #14 on: June 26, 2008, 06:30:15 pm »

J-Texas wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 13:09

Jay Kadis wrote on Thu, 26 June 2008 14:42



Our street gangs don't deserve the right to carry military weapons.





With all respect, Jay... our street gangs will acquire any weapon they desire. Without permission. That argument is not at all legitimate to me.  

So are you saying they DO deserve the right to carry assault rifles?  Not will they find them somewhere, but do they deserve the right to own them?  That's what we're discussing.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10   Go Up