U.S. justices could decide constitutionality of gun ownership

[brien]

Methinks your source is being intentionally obtuse here, brien, since the Constitution makes clear that BOTH Congress and the States have a share in running the militias.

I don't think so. Nowhere that I know in the constitution does the Federal government demur to state's rights to maintain state militias.

Article 1 section 8 authorizes Congress to organize, dicipline and arm militias. It states:

"to provide for organizing, arming and dicipling the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the dicipline prescribed by Congress"

Seems to me the Federal government is the boss here, not the individual state.

Not in the last 10-15 years they haven't brien... with the exception of Emerson.

Well Sonart, you conveniently leave off Parker vs DOC.

Got it, brien !?!?!?!

I had it before Sonart. You hang your hat on Miller from 1939. What is that??? Almost 60 years ago. I posted several cases decided in favor of the individual to keep and bear arms but you conveniently choose to cherry pick the ones you think you can shoot holes into here. I see.

And YET, those onerous 20,000 odd gun control laws that restrict that "right" remain in place

The Bill of Rights, void where prohibited by Law. We will see Sonart.


No bother, we should know by today whether the SCOTUS will revisit this issue. I am comfortable with the current make up of the court to uphold the right of an individual to keep and bear arms under the 2nd Amendment.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan And this makes them somehow legal? If I make a law outlawing newspapers and no one challenges it, is it legal? The fact that the people do or do not challenge it does not make it legal.

Since no one has challenged them in the high Court, yes, they are completely legal. This is exactly how the Constitution designed it.

Quote by: tivodan If I make a law outlawing newspapers and no one challenges it, is it legal?

If no one challenges it, then yes, it's legal. But then I can't imagine no one challenging it, can you?

makes you wonder all the more why, considering how hard the gun lobby has been fightng gun control legislation all these years, Miller has remained unchallenged.

Quote by: tivodan I see. So your argument is that the government can discard the Second Amendment because they have discarded other limitations the Founders intended to place on it?

No one's discarding anything, it's discarding itself by it's own language. If it said the right to use the telegraph shall not be impinged, how meaningful would it be in a world where no one uses the telegraph?

Quote by: tivodan So by your logic, because modern technology has advanced beyond the mechanical printing press and typesetting of the 18th century, the 1st Amendment is no longer applicable.

More like my example above. Besides, there's no qualifying statement regarding freedom of speech or the press. There is, however, for other rights, such as...

Amendment VII: "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,..."

...the qualifying statement being, "in suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars,...". Otherwise, the Amendment does not apply.

Quote by: tivodan The Revolution was over in what year? The Constitution became the controlling document in what year? Exactly. The Founding Fathers WERE governing when the 2nd Amendment was conceived, ratified, and took effect. Your argument is pure nonsense. If it was as you said, they wouldn't have written it.

My argument is nonsense, is it?

Then by all means, please share with us when the federal government allowed an armed insurrection against the federal government to succeed. Which of the founders was so enamored of the right to rebel against the government that they allowed anyone to rebel against THEIR government? Please, take all the time you need.

Quote by: tivodan When all of the founding fathers were dead. What's your point, again?

LOLOL!!! And your point is, what, that the Constitution is dead the moment it's founders are? My point, tivodan, is that for all the lip service the founders paid to the idea of having "the right" to rise up in armed rebellion against ones government, not one of them ever allowed a rebellion against THEIR government to succeed, and in 1861, when half the nation rose up in armed rebellion, Abraham Lincoln made it clear that should such a rebellion succeed, then, by definition, the very experiment in government by the people had failed, and he went to great lengths to make sure that could never happen.

And Milton's and Osborn's lust for blood notwithstanding, it is even less likely to succeed today.

Quote by: brien Seems to me the Federal government is the boss here, not the individual stat

How about that. It still says, "governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States" , which I assume means the states govern such parts that are NOT employed in the service of the United States, and even then, the States appoint officers and train their militias.

Quote by: brien Well Sonart, you conveniently leave off Parker vs DOC.

While you conveniently leave off the 8 cases - from the last 10 years - that I presented. Plus you conveniently leave off that the >>SUPREME COURT<< precedent in Miller remains unchallenged.

Quote by: brien The Bill of Rights, void where prohibited by Law. We will see Sonart.

That's your opinion, brien, which, along with 3 bucks might get you a decaf latte. The Constitution makes perfectly clear that the Supreme Court, and only the Supreme Court, decides what is or is not constitutional under law.

And yes, we may see. If the Court overturns Miller, then it does, and that will be the new law of the land and I'll have to accept it as such. But until then, the law is what the law is, regardless of what you guys wish it were.

.

[wolferiegn]

I personally find it funny that people keep bringing up old cases and old quotes and yet none of you look at if Wash. D.C. is better for not allowing citizens to own guns. Well the latest info i can find shows that Washington D.C. has The HIGHEST per capita Murder and non-negligent manslaughter in the nation and it is almost doubled the 2nd highest. So from that info and the fact that for 30 years D.C. has not allowed citizens to own guns just shows how much better it is to take guns away from the people. Oh just to check but you could read the huge amount of sarcasm in my last sentence. This is what i think is wrong with America all of you that have posted in here care only for your own beliefs not whats in the best interest of everyone and thats what the majority of all Americans do they preach there own beliefs rather than just trying to do what best for everyone.

[Osborn F Enready]

wolfreign said: This is what i think is wrong with America all of you that have posted in here care only for your own beliefs not whats in the best interest of everyone and thats what the majority of all Americans do they preach there own beliefs rather than just trying to do what best for everyone.

I can't preach, resolve, or ascertain what is best for "everyone", other than the obvious, which is that all people are individuals, with individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and have a right to live THEIR life as they see fit with respect to the rights of others. This would include a right to competent defense of life, if life were to have any tangible value at all.

Regardless of what an agent of the state or fed says, I own guns, will always own guns, and will never, ever, relinquish my guns as a rights respecting citizen of the United States.

To quote a fitting part of philosophy from Rand, which came from the Character Austin Heller in the "The Fountainhead":

"Since we are forced to live together in societies, the most important thing to remember is that the only way in which we can have any law at all, is to have as little of it as possible. I see no ethical standard by which to measure the whole unethical conception of a State, except in the amount of time, of thought, of money, of effort and of obedience, which a society extorts from its every member. Its value and its civilization are in inverse ratio to that extortion."

Removing the right of the people, all citizens of this United States, to bear arms of any type that fit within the realm of individual defensive arms, would be a consignment to the wolves that the sheep are ready for slaughter.

I would rather perish in that fight, than give one inch, one millimeter of credibility to the aburd notion that has become known as gun control in the name of peoples safety, at behest of the "government", as this argument ignores the very reason the people ARE recognized the right to keep and bear arms, which is to prevent total usurpation of law and order by a corrupt nation-state and its extensions of authority.

Regardless of what any court says, I will reserve my right to keep and bear arms.... to be more specific, firearms of both long and short barrel, low and high capacity magazines, in all varieties in which they may be produced.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . It IS obvious by the wording alone. "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state" is a clear, qualifying statement. This being the condition, what follows applies. And since this condition no longer exists, it does not apply..

It could be argued that having a standing army is unconstitutional since the means by which Congress is supposed to raise up an army specifically involves state militias and not a federal Department of Defense (though Congress was allowed to raise up a federal Navy).

[Osborn F Enready]

Sonart will disregard that logic Chancellor, as valid as it is, saying its "outdated thinking". Never mind that his argument is based entirely on "outdated, illogical thinking" of course, worse yet, lacking no proof, no unchallenged data, no actual coherant line of cause and effect argument, much less an argument of Constitutionality.

[brien]

And yes, we may see. If the Court overturns Miller, then it does, and that will be the new law of the land and I'll have to accept it as such. But until then, the law is what the law is, regardless of what you guys wish it were

Sonart, I don't wish anything. I have a permit to carry. I own several firearms and no one is showing up at my door to confisgate them. Last time I looked I was an individual, and I am certainly not connected with any militia, so indeed I am living proof that the individual in the US does have the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, the people of DC now have their right to own firearms reinstated and those who wish to abridge that right have lost another round in this ongoing assault upon the 2nd Amendment. Bring on SCOTUS.

Bill of Rights, void where prohibited by law.

[Osborn F Enready]

at Brien.

[brien]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready at Brien.

There are so many of us out here Os, just let them try to screw with us.

[Osborn F Enready]

I personally think its long overdue, the revolution or "dividing of the union" that is.

Time will tell.

[brien]

I am more in agreement with what is happening in NH w/ the Free State Project.

[Osborn F Enready]

I would love to move there, but unfortunately I see NH as being a bit too rich for my blood regarding land cost, etc.

[Praxius]

Actually the only family member I have living in the US at the moment, lives in NH.... go figure.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I would love to move there, but unfortunately I see NH as being a bit too rich for my blood regarding land cost, etc.

Not to mention too cold in the winter.

[nine steps]

We're already in a police state because everyone is dumbed down.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: nine steps We're already in a police state because everyone is dumbed down.

Speak for yourself!

[nine steps]

Quote by: Chancellor Speak for yourself!

I'm not speaking for myself, Einstein.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: brien Sonart, I don't wish anything. I have a permit to carry. I own several firearms and no one is showing up at my door to confisgate them.

Then what are you whining about.

Quote by: brien Last time I looked I was an individual, and I am certainly not connected with any militia, so indeed I am living proof that the individual in the US does have the right to keep and bear arms.

No, it shows you have the privilege. Break the law, and see how fast that privilege can be revoked.

I own a firearm myself. I simply see it as a privilege that I earned, just as like a drivers license, not some gawd given right.

Quote by: Chancelor It could be argued that having a standing army is unconstitutional since the means by which Congress is supposed to raise up an army specifically involves state militias and not a federal Department of Defense (though Congress was allowed to raise up a federal Navy).

Really? Where does it say that?

Article II Section 2: -- The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;

Article I Section 8: -- Congress shall have the power...

11 -- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

12 --To provide and maintain a navy;

13 -- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

14 -- To provide for calling forth the militia...

Looks to me like completely seperate issues.

Quote by: Osborn Sonart will disregard that logic Chancellor,

No, Osborn... as always, I will actually read the Constitution, instead of guessing or assuming what it says.

Quote by: wolferiegn I personally find it funny that people keep bringing up old cases and old quotes and yet none of you look at if Wash. D.C. is better for not allowing citizens to own guns.

Well, I tend to look at the nation as a whole, and I don't find it a bit funny. We are the most violent, belligerent civilized nation on earth. Our war in Iraq is a direct result of a national, gun-addled cowboy ethos, where everyone assumes that good guys are always handier with a gun than the bad guys -- except everyone thinks they're the former -- and there's no problem that can't be solved by having a bigger firearm.

Yes, firearms once helped to form this nation, but the days of the wide open frontier are long gone, and America is far too large, crowded, stressed out and angry for a populace armed ot the teeth to be anything other than a bane to our society. Gawd save us from ourselves.

.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Sonart . Really? Where does it say that? Article II Section 2: -- The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; Article I Section 8: -- Congress shall have the power... 11 -- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; 12 --To provide and maintain a navy; 13 -- To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; 14 -- To provide for calling forth the militia...

It's in part of what you quoted. Note:

11 -- To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years. The army is obviously intended to be temporary and not a permanent entity within the executive branch, since the money appropriated for an army can only be for up to two years. And it's the role of Congress to raise up this army, not the executive branch.

Notice, however, that there are no such limits on a navy:

12 --To provide and maintain a navy.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO QUOTE ME, SPELL MY NAME CORRECTLY!!!!!!!

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: ChAnSeLor The army is obviously intended to be temporary and not a permanent entity within the executive branch, since the money appropriated for an army can only be for up to two years. And it's the role of Congress to raise up this army, not the executive branch.

Yeah, and...?

Indeed, the army WAS intended to be temporary, hence the original significance of the 2nd Amendment and the importance of maintaining a well-regulated militia. But then the United States and the world changed.

So if Congress votes every year or every two years to fund the army with the means to be a de facto full time, permanent force, then that's Congress' choice, isn't it, and there's nothing unconstitutional about it. It simply has to be within a two year budget.

As to the executive branch, the President remains the CinC, with the power to command the military. Funding, as you can see in the days headlines, remains up to Congress, who obviously continue to fund it at levels necessary for a permanent force.

.