1sttruck, just in case I missed it in a previous post, what exactly is your position on gun control or the lack thereof?
Origins of the 'Right to Bear Arms'
- Thread starter 1sttruck
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit. That is all.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, in order for that to stick we would all need to march in the streets the same morning armed and ready. That would probably look a lot like a revolt. The rest would be very, uhm, interesting.
The 2nd Amendment is my gun permit. That is all.
As much as I agree with your sentiment, in order for that to stick we would all need to march in the streets the same morning armed and ready. That would probably look a lot like a revolt. The rest would be very, uhm, interesting.
1sttruck, that is all well and good but the 2nd Amendment, which takes precedence over the body of the Constitution and any laws passed by Congress, states:
"The right of the PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So unless you can somehow debunk what the "people" means, you don't have a leg to stand on. The militia has NOTHING to do with the right to bear arms.
Please tell me what you believe the Founding Fathers meant by the "people" in the Second Amendment.
Does it have a different meaning from the:
"We the People of the United States" in the preamble of the Constitution? If so, they you are making a case that ALL of the Constitutional protections do not apply to the populace of the US.
Also the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the first Amendment would also become null and void under your interpretation.
And what you posted directly states that the President is the commander in chief of the militias only "when called into the actual Service of the United States". To the best of my knowledge this is not currently the case. And what is the point to a militia if they are not armed?
"The right of the PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
So unless you can somehow debunk what the "people" means, you don't have a leg to stand on. The militia has NOTHING to do with the right to bear arms.
Please tell me what you believe the Founding Fathers meant by the "people" in the Second Amendment.
Does it have a different meaning from the:
"We the People of the United States" in the preamble of the Constitution? If so, they you are making a case that ALL of the Constitutional protections do not apply to the populace of the US.
Also the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." from the first Amendment would also become null and void under your interpretation.
And what you posted directly states that the President is the commander in chief of the militias only "when called into the actual Service of the United States". To the best of my knowledge this is not currently the case. And what is the point to a militia if they are not armed?
The 2nd amendment is "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." We just went over how others proposed specific statements about using arms for self defense, hunting, etc., why the proposals were not accepted as the debate was one essentially of state militias vs a federal army. And a it appears that your eitehr your only understanding or feeble defense is to not quote the complete 2nd amendment.
Oh geez. This has been addressed in DC vs Heller.
Refer to Scalia's comments:
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and Eng
lish as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is
unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the
founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of
state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory state
ment of purpose."
"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause (“The separation of church and state
being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall
have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes
clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of
interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. "
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
You can see where I'm going here.
If you seriously think that individuals do not have the right to own firearms, then I think you're living under a false sense of security and you basically pick and choose rights, instead of acknowledging all the ones that have been AFFIRMED under the BoR.
I see you are from Washington, which probably explains your point of view on the issue. Too many legislative pansies there think that people have to be protected from themselves.
Refer to Scalia's comments:
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be re
phrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A
Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585,
p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and Eng
lish as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).
Although this structure of the Second Amendment is
unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the
founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of
state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory state
ment of purpose."
"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated
purpose and the command. The Second Amendment
would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia,
being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be
infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may
cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the
operative clause (“The separation of church and state
being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall
have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes
clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of
interpretation but to clergymen.) But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. "
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
You can see where I'm going here.
If you seriously think that individuals do not have the right to own firearms, then I think you're living under a false sense of security and you basically pick and choose rights, instead of acknowledging all the ones that have been AFFIRMED under the BoR.
I see you are from Washington, which probably explains your point of view on the issue. Too many legislative pansies there think that people have to be protected from themselves.
You'd probably be surprised that Washington isn't even in the top 10 worst states for gun owners.
Not surprised at all, but there was some recent legislation in WA that I'm recalling but don't remember the details of. Like any other gun control law, it made absolutely no sense but sounded great to everyone that opposes individual firearm ownership.
As for the worst states for gun ownership, I think California + most of the NE have it covered.
As for the worst states for gun ownership, I think California + most of the NE have it covered.
I think you're talking about a Seattle ordinance, not a state one.
Quote:
But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. "
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
Great post Reddy45. I had forgotten about that from Scalia, the most brilliant judge on the Court by far.
But apart from that
clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or
expand the scope of the operative clause. "
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
Great post Reddy45. I had forgotten about that from Scalia, the most brilliant judge on the Court by far.
http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm
What the Founding Fathers meant by right to bear arms.
Quote:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
Just one of the golden quotes there.
What the Founding Fathers meant by right to bear arms.
Quote:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
Just one of the golden quotes there.
I was watching a TV show on this topic and about gun ownership in general and thought this point one of the commentators made was of significance. He went on to say that if the Jewish people had weapons and were able to defend themselves, do you think there would have been a holocaust? It would have at least brought the attention of the rest of the world and maybe that would have prevented this terrible tragedy from happening in the first place. You think something like that could have happened over here in the US? I'm not talking about a relatively low number, but something akin to the number of people that were slain or tortured during Hitlers control? I'm so glad a got a CCW permit.....
Originally Posted By: Schmoe
I was watching a TV show on this topic and about gun ownership in general and thought this point one of the commentators made was of significance. He went on to say that if the Jewish people had weapons and were able to defend themselves, do you think there would have been a holocaust? It would have at least brought the attention of the rest of the world and maybe that would have prevented this terrible tragedy from happening in the first place. You think something like that could have happened over here in the US? I'm not talking about a relatively low number, but something akin to the number of people that were slain or tortured during Hitlers control? I'm so glad a got a CCW permit.....
Compare the Holocaust to the Warsaw Uprising. At least the Poles died with honor and courage. I don't know that it would have made a difference in the end against the Nazi war machine. However, since we all die anyway, I'd rather go in glory rather than lead away in a straggling line.
I was watching a TV show on this topic and about gun ownership in general and thought this point one of the commentators made was of significance. He went on to say that if the Jewish people had weapons and were able to defend themselves, do you think there would have been a holocaust? It would have at least brought the attention of the rest of the world and maybe that would have prevented this terrible tragedy from happening in the first place. You think something like that could have happened over here in the US? I'm not talking about a relatively low number, but something akin to the number of people that were slain or tortured during Hitlers control? I'm so glad a got a CCW permit.....
Compare the Holocaust to the Warsaw Uprising. At least the Poles died with honor and courage. I don't know that it would have made a difference in the end against the Nazi war machine. However, since we all die anyway, I'd rather go in glory rather than lead away in a straggling line.
Quote:
I'm so glad a got a CCW permit.....
The fact that you have to get one is part of the problem. Let's them know exactly what you have and where to get your guns.
I'm so glad a got a CCW permit.....
The fact that you have to get one is part of the problem. Let's them know exactly what you have and where to get your guns.
Ihave just read "A Bill of Rights Primer" by Akhil Amar. He is a Yale Constitutional Law Professor. Its the best book by far I have ever seen on the Bill of Rights.
Basically he indicates that the Bill of Rights were written at a time when the Anti-Federalists got concessions for Ratifying the Constitution. These rights were not so much individual rights as they were rights for curtailing the power of the Federal Gov. The "People" as in the 2A and other places in the 10 First Amendments were (at the time) were not 'All' of the people. They were the Adult Free Males who had the power to Vote, Make Laws, Participate in the Militia, etc.
Its purpose was that these same "People" would be expected and allowed to join their Friends/neighbors in State Militias to oppose the Federal Standing Armies or other Armies that the Federal Gov might try to use to suppress the Population. So at this time "Militias" were by and large State Troops that could oppose the Federal Government. So although the 2A did give these "Class" of men the right and privilege to bare (military term) it was more of a context for Military Service rather than hunting or personal protection.
In the bill of rights (at that time) if they wanted to discuss personal or 'civil' rights they said to by using the word "Owner", "Person", "Accused" Again "The People" was nor primarily an "Individual"right.
Fast Forward to the "Reconstruction Era". Since the Civil War had just been fought...the 39th Congress was in a mood to curtail States Rights and also strengthen the rights of Individuals. This was done by the 14 Amendment.This completely turned the meaning of the Bill of Rights on its head. They were changed forever.
Long story short the 14 Amendment made "The People" the "individuals". It also meant that "The People" were Womem, and any other person who would chose to keep a gun.
So when folks get carried away with the 2A Amendment and the Founding Fathers wanting everyone to have a gun.........not so much. The 14 th Amendment really made it so.
This book is out of print and difficult to get. But if its at your Library I really urge you to read it. Its a Great book.
Basically he indicates that the Bill of Rights were written at a time when the Anti-Federalists got concessions for Ratifying the Constitution. These rights were not so much individual rights as they were rights for curtailing the power of the Federal Gov. The "People" as in the 2A and other places in the 10 First Amendments were (at the time) were not 'All' of the people. They were the Adult Free Males who had the power to Vote, Make Laws, Participate in the Militia, etc.
Its purpose was that these same "People" would be expected and allowed to join their Friends/neighbors in State Militias to oppose the Federal Standing Armies or other Armies that the Federal Gov might try to use to suppress the Population. So at this time "Militias" were by and large State Troops that could oppose the Federal Government. So although the 2A did give these "Class" of men the right and privilege to bare (military term) it was more of a context for Military Service rather than hunting or personal protection.
In the bill of rights (at that time) if they wanted to discuss personal or 'civil' rights they said to by using the word "Owner", "Person", "Accused" Again "The People" was nor primarily an "Individual"right.
Fast Forward to the "Reconstruction Era". Since the Civil War had just been fought...the 39th Congress was in a mood to curtail States Rights and also strengthen the rights of Individuals. This was done by the 14 Amendment.This completely turned the meaning of the Bill of Rights on its head. They were changed forever.
Long story short the 14 Amendment made "The People" the "individuals". It also meant that "The People" were Womem, and any other person who would chose to keep a gun.
So when folks get carried away with the 2A Amendment and the Founding Fathers wanting everyone to have a gun.........not so much. The 14 th Amendment really made it so.
This book is out of print and difficult to get. But if its at your Library I really urge you to read it. Its a Great book.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Reddy45
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
Actually "The People" as I mentioned above 'was' more of a 'Political' than an "Individual" right/duty. So the information where you got your information may have been making that point. It was the 'Political' right and duty for the same class of Free Adult Males (who voted and served in the Militia) to be able to to overthrow an oppressive Fed. Government by opposing Federal Troops in conjunction with their [State] Militias.
Pleas note..I am not saying that the Constitution doesn't give us the right to use and keep guns. I'm pointing out that is not what the Framers had chiefly in mind. It was only in the Passage of the 14th Amendment that the 2A got its teeth for individuals.
"What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitu
tion that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously
refers to all members of the political community, not an
unspecified subset."
Actually "The People" as I mentioned above 'was' more of a 'Political' than an "Individual" right/duty. So the information where you got your information may have been making that point. It was the 'Political' right and duty for the same class of Free Adult Males (who voted and served in the Militia) to be able to to overthrow an oppressive Fed. Government by opposing Federal Troops in conjunction with their [State] Militias.
Pleas note..I am not saying that the Constitution doesn't give us the right to use and keep guns. I'm pointing out that is not what the Framers had chiefly in mind. It was only in the Passage of the 14th Amendment that the 2A got its teeth for individuals.
Last edited:
"Oh geez. This has been addressed in DC vs Heller. Refer to Scalia's comments:..."
And it's also been addressed by Stevens, so refer to the dissenting comments too. With all of the talk about 'originalism' I actually thought that we'd get a good opinion per the history of how the Bill of Rights were proposed, debated, and formed, as posted here and as Stevens has noted too, but instead we end up with 'originalism' being something else that you don't want to step in.
There are a number of issues, I'll post some responses by others in other replies and just refer to one example. Below we see Scalia stating that Presser vs Illinois doesn't say anything about the Second Amendment, when in fact the rest of the world, Stevens and the rest of the dissenting memebers included, acknowledge that it's one of the few opinions by the Supreme Court that does have something to say about the 2nd, a fair amount actually if one reads Presser vs Illinois. To deny that is just an indication of a judicial hack job, where one starts with a premise that one believes in and rearranges and disregards information to arrive at the belief. This is characteristic of 'conservative reasoning', which is why conservative movements are often associated with stagnant or regressive intellectual trends.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court
....Justice Stevens presses Presser into service to support his view that the right to bear arms is limited to service in the militia by joining Presser’s brief discussion of the Second Amendment with a later portion of the opinion making the seemingly relevant (to the Second Amendment ) point that the plaintiff was not a member of the state militia.... Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment ’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Stevens, J., dissenting
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20063989
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
....We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
And it's also been addressed by Stevens, so refer to the dissenting comments too. With all of the talk about 'originalism' I actually thought that we'd get a good opinion per the history of how the Bill of Rights were proposed, debated, and formed, as posted here and as Stevens has noted too, but instead we end up with 'originalism' being something else that you don't want to step in.
There are a number of issues, I'll post some responses by others in other replies and just refer to one example. Below we see Scalia stating that Presser vs Illinois doesn't say anything about the Second Amendment, when in fact the rest of the world, Stevens and the rest of the dissenting memebers included, acknowledge that it's one of the few opinions by the Supreme Court that does have something to say about the 2nd, a fair amount actually if one reads Presser vs Illinois. To deny that is just an indication of a judicial hack job, where one starts with a premise that one believes in and rearranges and disregards information to arrive at the belief. This is characteristic of 'conservative reasoning', which is why conservative movements are often associated with stagnant or regressive intellectual trends.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court
....Justice Stevens presses Presser into service to support his view that the right to bear arms is limited to service in the militia by joining Presser’s brief discussion of the Second Amendment with a later portion of the opinion making the seemingly relevant (to the Second Amendment ) point that the plaintiff was not a member of the state militia.... Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment ’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
Stevens, J., dissenting
http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/20063989
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
....We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'
We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
"I see you are from Washington, which probably explains your point of view on the issue. Too many legislative pansies there think that people have to be protected from themselves."
Making such a statement these days with how often people move around, especially since the military has been more active, suggests that you're some sort of hayseed. One actually doesn't need to live in a small town in the boonies someplace to be a hayseed, as some of those people are actually open minded, intelligent, well read like people are in other places, instead you just need to live in a small world regardless of what your address is. For all you know I could have relatives from Oklahoma, or have come from there myself, and I just happen to be living in Washington for now. In any case let's play your game and look at violent crime and homicides in each state.... gee, lots of Okies shoot each other, at a rate over twice that in Washington, which suggests that people in Oklahoma should know that violent people with guns are around so that result in a lower violent crime rate, but that's evidently not what is happening there, is it ? And gee, in Oklahoma one needs to take a firearms safety course before getting a concealed carry permit, unlike in Washington. I guess people in Washington don't think that you need to legislate firearms safety in this context, unlike in Oklahome.
FBI UCR 2007
Oklahoma - rates per 100k
Violent Crime - 499.6
homocides - 6.1
Washington
Violent crime - 333.1
homicides - 2.7
Making such a statement these days with how often people move around, especially since the military has been more active, suggests that you're some sort of hayseed. One actually doesn't need to live in a small town in the boonies someplace to be a hayseed, as some of those people are actually open minded, intelligent, well read like people are in other places, instead you just need to live in a small world regardless of what your address is. For all you know I could have relatives from Oklahoma, or have come from there myself, and I just happen to be living in Washington for now. In any case let's play your game and look at violent crime and homicides in each state.... gee, lots of Okies shoot each other, at a rate over twice that in Washington, which suggests that people in Oklahoma should know that violent people with guns are around so that result in a lower violent crime rate, but that's evidently not what is happening there, is it ? And gee, in Oklahoma one needs to take a firearms safety course before getting a concealed carry permit, unlike in Washington. I guess people in Washington don't think that you need to legislate firearms safety in this context, unlike in Oklahome.
FBI UCR 2007
Oklahoma - rates per 100k
Violent Crime - 499.6
homocides - 6.1
Washington
Violent crime - 333.1
homicides - 2.7
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-freedman/dc-v-heller-scalias-decis_b_110017.html
A virtuoso performance -- that's the only way to describe Justice Antonin Scalia's majority
opinion in yesterday's DC v. Heller decision.
After all, here was a jurist whose entire career is supposedly based on scrupulous fidelity to the words of the Founding Fathers, and Scalia had to figure out a way to disregard thirteen of those precious words. Here's how he did it =- and why his decision will eventually come back to haunt conservatives.....
...Quite apart from his re-ordering of the amendment, Scalia plays fast-and-loose with the words of the text. The right established in the "operative" clause is "to keep and bear arms." Time and again, scholars have shown that the phrase "bear arms" had an overwhelmingly military meaning in the eighteenth century. A group of professors of linguistics and English submitted an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, citing a survey of 115 examples of the phrase "bear arms" in books and pamphlets published at the time of the Constitution. In all but five of those examples, "bear arms" was used to convey military action.
Given the choice between the commonplace military interpretation of "bear arms" and the exceedingly rare non-military interpretation, Scalia opts for the non-military usage -- which, of course, makes perfect sense when interpreting a sentence which begins with a tribute to a "well regulated militia." To bolster his conclusion, Scalia relies on a 1998 Supreme Court decision which actually concerned the interpretation of the phrase "carries a firearm."
So much for Scalia's much-vaunted "originalism," which advocates reading the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time of the Founding.....
...But if Scalia can twist the language of the Constitution to read rights expansively, then he can scarcely object to those who read the Constitution's powers expansively. Advocates can argue that Section 8 of Article I is just like the militia clause of the Second Amendment; that is, it merely announces some of the purposes of Congressional power -- not all of the purposes. Of all people, Scalia should realize that once you disregard the text, even thirteen little words, you have set a precedent for generations to come....
A virtuoso performance -- that's the only way to describe Justice Antonin Scalia's majority
opinion in yesterday's DC v. Heller decision.
After all, here was a jurist whose entire career is supposedly based on scrupulous fidelity to the words of the Founding Fathers, and Scalia had to figure out a way to disregard thirteen of those precious words. Here's how he did it =- and why his decision will eventually come back to haunt conservatives.....
...Quite apart from his re-ordering of the amendment, Scalia plays fast-and-loose with the words of the text. The right established in the "operative" clause is "to keep and bear arms." Time and again, scholars have shown that the phrase "bear arms" had an overwhelmingly military meaning in the eighteenth century. A group of professors of linguistics and English submitted an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, citing a survey of 115 examples of the phrase "bear arms" in books and pamphlets published at the time of the Constitution. In all but five of those examples, "bear arms" was used to convey military action.
Given the choice between the commonplace military interpretation of "bear arms" and the exceedingly rare non-military interpretation, Scalia opts for the non-military usage -- which, of course, makes perfect sense when interpreting a sentence which begins with a tribute to a "well regulated militia." To bolster his conclusion, Scalia relies on a 1998 Supreme Court decision which actually concerned the interpretation of the phrase "carries a firearm."
So much for Scalia's much-vaunted "originalism," which advocates reading the Constitution as it would have been understood at the time of the Founding.....
...But if Scalia can twist the language of the Constitution to read rights expansively, then he can scarcely object to those who read the Constitution's powers expansively. Advocates can argue that Section 8 of Article I is just like the militia clause of the Second Amendment; that is, it merely announces some of the purposes of Congressional power -- not all of the purposes. Of all people, Scalia should realize that once you disregard the text, even thirteen little words, you have set a precedent for generations to come....
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
