Justices agree on right to own guns

[??!]

Quote by: Deadeye The 2nd Ammendment is already "infringed upon" and most accept it to a greater or lessor degree. Felons and the mentally unfit are not allowed to own or carry guns. We cannot own machine guns without going through a long process, and since Bill Clinton limited the number of machine guns to guns already here the price of them has gone up ten fold (at least). I was at a gun show yesterday. I saw a Tommy Gun for sale. Price? $19,500. Before the Clinton machine gun limit the cost of a new Tommy Gun was $900. The trouble is gun laws have been too restrictive to too many people. Law abiding citizens should be able to own and carry (that's what "bare" means) guns in every city and county in very state of the United States.

Explain to me why law abiding citizens should own or need a Tommy Gun?

[Deadeye]

Quote by: ??! Explain to me why law abiding citizens should own or need a Tommy Gun?

A Tommy Gun is really fun to own and shoot. Have you ever handled one? If you are a fan of guns a Tommy Gun is a real neat one to have.

You can own one now and until not long ago they were easy and not to expensive to purchase. I saw one for sale this weekend at a gun show.

As far as I know there has never been a crime committed with a legally owned machine gun.

Your primise is therefore, misplaced. The gun does not commit the crime, the criminal does. A machine gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is not a threat to anyone.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: ??! Explain to me why law abiding citizens should own or need a Tommy Gun?

Now that's the way to think in the "land of the free, and home of the brave"!

Why does anyone need X? That's the power the sheeple should cede to the all powerful, benevolent government. Can't go wrong there!

[Apeman81]

You gotta love it when some putz starts a sentence about the 2nd amendment with "for the past 70 years..."
So what did the 2nd amendment mean 71 years ago?
What did it mean when it was written?

A few minutes review of the documents that lead to the Bill of Rights that allowed the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates clearly the 2nd Amendment was born of 2 independent ideals; The Federal government should not be allowed to maintain a standing army, and that the people have the right to keep and carry weapons.

Heck! One state proposed that the only exception to the right to own a weapon is a person in active rebellion against the United States.

The lie of the words "the people" being collective in this single instance in the amendments to the Constitution is ridiculous on its face.

But we have seen that activist thinking can lead to selective interpretation. It's easier when you match that with an ignorant compliant populace.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Deadeye A Tommy Gun is really fun to own and shoot. Have you ever handled one? If you are a fan of guns a Tommy Gun is a real neat one to have.

That's a helluva price you're asking other Americans to pay so that you can enjoy your fun.

Quote by: Apeman You gotta love it when some putz starts a sentence about the 2nd amendment with "for the past 70 years..." So what did the 2nd amendment mean 71 years ago? What did it mean when it was written?

Are you actually that stupid, Apeman? Well, I suppose with that handle like... oh never mind.

The Second Amendment says what it always has, Apeman, but in 1939 the Supreme Court of the United States, in deciding the U.S. v Miller, made it official what it says, which is as follows...

You have the right to keep and bear arms provided that, and only provided that, it is necessary for the maintenance of a well regulated militia, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

And since then, that precedent has be affirmed and expanded on by 8 of the 11 Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, thus cementing Miller as the standing case law precedent of the Supreme Court.

In other words, the law of the land. And even more amazingly, during those 70 years, not once has the gun lobby or anyone else chosen to challenge -- as citizens do every year before the Supreme Court on issues from free speech, to religion, to due process, to whatever -- any of those 20,000 evil gun control laws as violations of your 2nd Amendment rights.

No, instead they chose simply to lie to Americans day in and day out until, like you, the poor dumb slobs came to believe they had a right that, based on law, simply wasn't true.

Quote by: Apeman Heck! One state proposed that the only exception to the right to own a weapon is a person in active rebellion against the United States.

Yeah... so? The Constitution doesn't make guns legal or illegal. It simply says you don't have an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own one. Or are you too much of a "putz" to comprehend that too.

The lie of the words "the people" being collective in this single instance in the amendments to the Constitution is ridiculous on its face.

"The People" in the 2nd Amendment refer to the same "the people" who Alexander Hamilton referred to in the Federalist papers when referring to the militia. "The people" he referred to were the civilians citizen volunteers who comprised each state militia, as opposed to a "professional standing army", which none of the founders particularly trusted.

But what you or I think they meant by 'the people' is moot, because we don't get to decide... the Constitution of the United States specifically gave that job to the Supreme Court, and I already told you what they decided.

But we have seen that activist thinking can lead to selective interpretation.

Whaddaya mean, "activist thinking". This is a strict constructionist interpretation, based on exactly what the Amendment says. "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,..." is a qualifying statement that defines anything that follows it.

YOUR thinking is the "activist interpretation" of what you "think" the founders meant, rather than a strict reading of what the Amendement actually says. Jeez, get over yourself.

.

[Apeman81]

The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only five subsequent cases: Prinz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961). According to the Court's most recent words on Miller, "The Court [in Miller] did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

So much for your assertion of what Miller established about the rights of the individual to own a firearm.

In fact, the USSC has demured from deciding exactly what right is protected by the 2nd amendment. A number of cases which would have forced the court into doing so have not been Granted a Writ of Certiorari, thus the court has refused to hear such cases.

Which is why this case before the court is of such import. It is at last possible that the court may actually answer the question.

I wonder how it is you are so ready to interpret the word "people" in the second amendment as meaning something different in the 1st, 4th, and 10th.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . Whaddaya mean, "activist thinking". This is a strict constructionist interpretation, based on exactly what the Amendment says. "A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state,..." is a qualifying statement that defines anything that follows it. .

You're right, the first line of the amendment qualifies the rest, but you're misinterpreting HOW it qualifies the rest. I could make the argument myself, but Penn and Teller do it in one minute here:

YouTube - Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

it's worth a watch.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman The U.S. Supreme Court has mentioned Miller in only five subsequent cases: Prinz (1997); Lewis (1980); Adams (1972); Atlanta Motel (1961); and Konigsberg (1961). According to the Court's most recent words on Miller, "The Court [in Miller] did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

Miller has been more than amply affirmed, expanded and clarified by the Circuit Courts...

3rd Circuit Court, United States v. Rybar

4th Circuit Court, Love v. Peppersack

Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis -- "Although the limited nature of the right guaranteed by the Second Amendment may not deprive Gillespie of standing, it does foretell the outcome of his challenge. For Gillespie has not convinced us that he can demonstrate a "reasonable relationship" between his own inability to carry a firearm and "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Miller, 307 U.S. at 178, 59 S. Ct. at 818. Because Gillespie has no reasonable prospect of being able to demonstrate such a nexus between the firearms disability imposed by the statute and the operation of state militias, Judge Barker was right to dismiss his Second Amendment claim."

6th Circuit Court, United States v. Warin -- "Agreeing as we do with the conclusion in Cases v. United States, supra, that the Supreme Court did not lay down a general rule in Miller, we consider the present case on its own facts and in light of applicable authoritative decisions. It is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right. In Stevens v. United States, 440 F.2d 144, 149 (6th Cir. 1971), this court held, in a case challenging the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. App. § 1202(a)(1):"

7th Circuit Court, Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis

8th Circuit Court, United States v. Hale -- "Since the Miller decision, no federal court has found any individual's possession of a military weapon to be "reasonably related to a well regulated militia." "Technical" membership in a state militia (e.g., membership in an "unorganized" state militia) or membership in a non-governmental military organization is not sufficient to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test. Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387. Membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia is likewise insufficient. See Warin, 530 F.2d 103.

Applying these principles to the present case, we conclude that Hale's possession of the weapons in question was not reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia. The allegation by Hale that these weapons are susceptible to military use is insufficient to establish such a relationship. Hale introduced no evidence and made no claim of even the most tenuous relationship between his possession of the weapons and the preservation of a well regulated militia."

9th Circuit Court, Silveira v Lockyer --"Our court, like every other federal court of appeals to reach the issue except for the Fifth Circuit, has interpreted Miller as rejecting the traditional individual rights view. In Hickman v. Block, we held that "the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." 81 F.3d at 102 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Like the other courts, we reached our conclusion regarding the Second Amendment's scope largely on the basis of the rather cursory discussion in Miller, and touched only briefly on the merits of the debate over [*22] the force of the amendment. See id.

After conducting our analysis of the meaning of the words employed in the amendment's two clauses, and the effect of their relationship to each other, we concluded that the language and structure of the amendment strongly support the collective rights view. The preamble establishes that the amendment's purpose was to ensure the maintenance of effective state militias, and the amendment's operative clause establishes that this objective was to be attained by preserving the right of the people to "bear arms" -- to carry weapons in conjunction with their service in the militia. . . .

IV. [*106] CONCLUSION

Because the Second Amendment affords only a collective right to own or possess guns or other firearms, the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' Second Amendment claims is AFFIRMED."--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Besides all of which, you haven't answered my question, Apeman. Why, in 70 years, hasn't a single gun control law -- which the gun lobby goes to huge expense to oppose -- been challenged before the Court as a violation of your 2nd Amendment rights?

Well, since you're obviously completely ignorant of current events, you'll be happy to know that they finally have. When Washington, DC passed a law that outlawed owning handguns, the gun rights lobby had no choice but to act. The lower Court, in DC v. Heller, decided in favor of the gun owner, and DC appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the case in March. Their ruling is due this month, June.

If the Roberts Court overturns Miller, I'm sure you'll be pleased that the Bush League finally got something to go their way.

Quote by: GloriousCause You're right, the first line of the amendment qualifies the rest, but you're misinterpreting HOW it qualifies the rest.

I'm not interpreting anything, GC. I'm just some slob pounding on keyboards.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

They're the folks who interpret and decide, and what they've decided is that you have the right to keep and bear arms provided that it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

Period.

Law of the Land.

Sorry about that.

Quote by: GloriousCause it's worth a watch.

Yeah, yeah, I've seen it, thanks. They also both atheists who do a great riff against the Bible. Hope you're not religious, GC.

.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . I'm not interpreting anything, GC. I'm just some slob pounding on keyboards. "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." They're the folks who interpret and decide, and what they've decided is that you have the right to keep and bear arms provided that it is necessary for the maintenance of a well-regulated militia, as defined by the U.S. Constitution.

I don't deny that's what they've interpreted. I'm just saying it's wrong. Is criticism of Supreme Court justices still legal? They are still considered humans like the rest of us, right?

Obviously, I'm still smarting from when Marbury v. Madison turned America from a constitutional republic into a Kritarchy.

Yeah, yeah, I've seen it, thanks.They also both atheists who do a great riff against the Bible. Hope you're not religious, GC..

Aww - did you think I was religious just because I support gun rights??? I'm not - but thanks for your concern!

[Apeman81]

A USSC decision equals the law of the land?

Two words: Dred Scot

We'll see where this court goes.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Apeman A USSC decision equals the law of the land? Two words: Dred Scot We'll see where this court goes.

LOLOL!!

Apeman, I certainly hope you didn't pay to go to college, because someone should return your money.

Are you suggesting that Dred Scot was a wrong decision? Perhaps in the morally relative views of today, but certainly not then. In 1856, the U.S. Constitution still said the following:

Article IV, Section 2, clause 2 -- "No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

Dred Scott simply upheld what was written in plain english in the Constitution, before it was repealed by the 13th and 14th Amendments 30 years later.

Sheesh, talk about "activist" thinking.

Quote by: GloriousCause I don't deny that's what they've interpreted. I'm just saying it's wrong. Is criticism of Supreme Court justices still legal? They are still considered humans like the rest of us, right?

Humans who are considerably more educated in constitutional law, and given the overwhelming consensus from the lower courts, theirs is an opinion the nations highest justices seemed to agree with...

...your vast expertise in Constitutional Law notwithstanding.

I have some disagreements of my own. For example:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

And yet... in 1864 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion on U.S. coins, and then again in 1873.

Then again, in 1954, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into the Pledge of Allegience to be recited by American school children.

And again in 1957, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into the official motto of the United States.

For the life of me, I can't think of a more crystal clear violation of the Constitution. Can you? But then, I'm just a poor slob pounding on a keyboard and my opinion and $6 bucks will get you a cup of coffee, so I don't get a say in it.

The point being that it's all well and good for you to disagree with the law of the land, but when you say that you have a constitutionally guaranteed, 2nd Amendment individual right to own guns, it's simply false... you're repeating a big lie. If you want to say that in your opinion we should have such a right, that's something else, but you can't go around insisting you have a right you legally don't simply because you personally disagree with the current law of the land.

.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Apeman81 Now that's the way to think in the "land of the free, and home of the brave"! Why does anyone need X? That's the power the sheeple should cede to the all powerful, benevolent government. Can't go wrong there!

It's also a good reason to have a tommy gun, to protect one's self from that all powerful government.

I have never shot a tommy gun, but I have shot a lot of machine guns. Lots of people in Oregon have one. When I go to the range (I'm a member) there are usually a few guys banging away with their submachine guns.

They are very expensive to shoot and it's rather hard to hit anything. But they love it and go to some pretty heavy expense to own and shoot machine guns.

I'm more of a "take aim, and shoot slowfire" guy myself. I was in the Marine Corps and in the Army (later on) and used to spend a lot of time telling my troops not to use the "auto" selection on their M-16's. They'd burn up a lot of ammo shooting full auto.

Then they changed the weapon and removed the full auto selection switch and replace it with a "burst" switch, which causes the weapons to shoot only three shots in auto fire. Then you have to pull the trigger again to get another three. It works just fine and saves ammo.

[Apeman81]

You make my point. The USSC does not [b]establish[b] law. It interprets it.

As such, a decision becomes precedent until the decision is overturned or a law is passed to make the decision moot.

The current case before the USSC will deal directly with a community's right to keep and bear arms. That is why this case is much anticipated.
My hope is that the court will not dance around the issue, but will meet it head on.

Putting aside the legal argument, why should the people be denied the ability to own and carry arms?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Deadeye It's also a good reason to have a tommy gun, to protect one's self from that all powerful government. I have never shot a tommy gun, but I have shot a lot of machine guns. Lots of people in Oregon have one. When I go to the range (I'm a member) there are usually a few guys banging away with their submachine guns. They are very expensive to shoot and it's rather hard to hit anything. But they love it and go to some pretty heavy expense to own and shoot machine guns. I'm more of a "take aim, and shoot slowfire" guy myself. I was in the Marine Corps and in the Army (later on) and used to spend a lot of time telling my troops not to use the "auto" selection on their M-16's. They'd burn up a lot of ammo shooting full auto. Then they changed the weapon and removed the full auto selection switch and replace it with a "burst" switch, which causes the weapons to shoot only three shots in auto fire. Then you have to pull the trigger again to get another three. It works just fine and saves ammo.

I remember when the trick was to limit the weapon to a 3 shot burst via trigger control. These kids today.... they get it easy...

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Apeman81 I remember when the trick was to limit the weapon to a 3 shot burst via trigger control. These kids today.... they get it easy...

Remember how hard it was to get six rounds off from a M-60? We instructed our guys to try for six, but they'd usually got for three.

"Try again and shoot longer bursts" I'd admonish.

Sometimes the guys would go overboard and burn up half a belt of ammo. That caused the barrel to smoke and even turn red hot. Then it'd actually began to bend and shoot low.

Then you had to take that asbestos glove (the kind folks use on barbecues), removed the old barrel and replace it with a new one.

I always thought that M-60 was unwieldy. I didn't like it much. I think the old BAR was a better weapon. But truthfully I never fired or even saw one.

Today they have the SAW which I worked with when we first got it in the mid 80's. It misfired a lot and jammed, but I think it has improved. Trouble is it still shoots that little bitty 5.56 round.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Deadeye Remember how hard it was to get six rounds off from a M-60? We instructed our guys to try for six, but they'd usually got for three. "Try again and shoot longer bursts" I'd admonish. Sometimes the guys would go overboard and burn up half a belt of ammo. That caused the barrel to smoke and even turn red hot. Then it'd actually began to bend and shoot low. Then you had to take that asbestos glove (the kind folks use on barbecues), removed the old barrel and replace it with a new one. I always thought that M-60 was unwieldy. I didn't like it much. I think the old BAR was a better weapon. But truthfully I never fired or even saw one. Today they have the SAW which I worked with when we first got it in the mid 80's. It misfired a lot and jammed, but I think it has improved. Trouble is it still shoots that little bitty 5.56 round.

Unfortunately, I did not have the experience with the M60. Wingnut puke that I was.

While the 5.56 has some good qualities, including the abilty to carry more ammo in a smaller, lighter package, I've never been sold on the absolute value that makes it a mainstay calibre for our troops.

I'm not alone, as the M14 in one form or another is a favorite among special forces types. Hard to beat the .308 (7.62x51 NATO) for firepower, range and ballistics. And I'll take a .45 ACP over the 9mm Parabellum anyday.

Too much NATO influence for my taste. Light calibres don't end the fight fast enough for my taste.

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Apeman81 Unfortunately, I did not have the experience with the M60. Wingnut puke that I was. While the 5.56 has some good qualities, including the abilty to carry more ammo in a smaller, lighter package, I've never been sold on the absolute value that makes it a mainstay calibre for our troops. I'm not alone, as the M14 in one form or another is a favorite among special forces types. Hard to beat the .308 (7.62x51 NATO) for firepower, range and ballistics. And I'll take a .45 ACP over the 9mm Parabellum anyday. Too much NATO influence for my taste. Light calibres don't end the fight fast enough for my taste.

I could not agree with you more. There is a movement afoot to bring back the .45. I read that individual GI's are taking their own over to Iraq, but since I have not been there (retired from the army in 1994) I don't have any first hand knowledge.

The army is thinking about other rounds for the 5.56. I'm sure that you have read about the 270 bullet in the 30 Rem case. That round fits in existing 5.56 magazines and just requires a new barrel. It shoots harder. But I do not know if it'll be adopted. BTW: the current M-16 and its varients has been around longer than any other weapons system in our history. Strange because I've never liked it much.

I "humpted" the M-14 many years ago. But during the war I was in the air wing too, flying A-4's in the Marine Corps. Neat little airplane.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Deadeye I could not agree with you more. There is a movement afoot to bring back the .45. I read that individual GI's are taking their own over to Iraq, but since I have not been there (retired from the army in 1994) I don't have any first hand knowledge. The army is thinking about other rounds for the 5.56. I'm sure that you have read about the . That round fits in existing 5.56 magazines and just requires a new barrel. It shoots harder. But I do not know if it'll be adopted. BTW: the current M-16 and its varients has been around longer than any other weapons system in our history. Strange because I've never liked it much. I "humpted" the M-14 many years ago. But during the war I was in the air wing too, flying A-4's in the Marine Corps. Neat little airplane.

M16 has been around since the 60's. Never thought of it that way, but come to think of it, that is the longest of any modern arm.

I've seen the 6.8 mm Remington SPC (I believe that is the round of which you speak) The "doubling" of bullet weight is a real postive for me. I ascribe to the "too light won't fly right" school of bullet selection.

I'd like to see a change in that direction

[Deadeye]

Quote by: Apeman81 M16 has been around since the 60's. Never thought of it that way, but come to think of it, that is the longest of any modern arm. I've seen the 6.8 mm Remington SPC (I believe that is the round of which you speak) The "doubling" of bullet weight is a real postive for me. I ascribe to the "too light won't fly right" school of bullet selection. I'd like to see a change in that direction

Yep, that's the round. I had forgotten what they call it. While it was written about a last year I have not heard that the Army is going to adopt it.

I think they are working on some new bullpup kind of design. Lots of stuff is in the works.

[GloriousCause]

Quote by: Sonart . Humans who are considerably more educated in constitutional law, and given the overwhelming consensus from the lower courts, theirs is an opinion the nations highest justices seemed to agree with... ...your vast expertise in Constitutional Law notwithstanding.

Opinions on this issue, among those well educated in Constitutional law, are all over the map. And keep in mind that much of what we consider "Constitutional law" is actually a study of precedent, not a study in the intent of the founders.

I have some disagreements of my own. For example: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" And yet... in 1864 Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion on U.S. coins, and then again in 1873. Then again, in 1954, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into the Pledge of Allegience to be recited by American school children. And again in 1957, Congress made a law respecting an establishment of religion into the official motto of the United States. For the life of me, I can't think of a more crystal clear violation of the Constitution. Can you? But then, I'm just a poor slob pounding on a keyboard and my opinion and $6 bucks will get you a cup of coffee, so I don't get a say in it.

Because you're not in power. But keep in mind that power does not equal knowledge. The judges who achieve high status and power are of the same class as the Generals who achieve high status and power. They're not the smartest, they're not the best. They're just the ones with the best connections.

The point being that it's all well and good for you to disagree with the law of the land, but when you say that you have a constitutionally guaranteed, 2nd Amendment individual right to own guns, it's simply false... you're repeating a big lie. If you want to say that in your opinion we should have such a right, that's something else, but you can't go around insisting you have a right you legally don't simply because you personally disagree with the current law of the land. .

When I say that I have an individual right to keep and bear arms, it isn't "a big lie" - it just isn't respected by the government. I stand by my opinion on the matter because I am confident in my interpretation of it - all philosophy and bias aside. Whether or not my opinion is held as the "law of the land" is irrelevant, IMHO the right exists. I acknowledge that the right not respected as the law of the land, so legally the correct wording is that it is a right we "should" have, but legality does not change the truth of the Constitution, it just changes the rules we need to live by.