A life subsisting on tofu and bean sprouts is hardly worth living. Give me a shrimp appetizer, a nice, thick, rare ribeye, a "loaded" baked potato, and a pitcher of dark beer, followed by flan and an apperitif. I have no desire to live so long that I sit around drooling on myself wondering what my name is. However long I have will be spent enjoying life.
When I said it was the Supreme Court's job to interpret the Constitution, you replied by entering "Wut?"... I was just explaining... answering your "Wut?"... which I assume was an attempt to post "What?".
My state is officially a "2d Amendment Sanctuary" after the liberal model of "Illegal Immigration Sanctuary" states. Our state believes in liberty and the Constitution. TEXAS! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!
I think that the Supreme Court wanted to send a message that despite overturning the D.C. handgun ban they were not open to overturning other federal gun laws such as the NFA, the GCA, the Brady Law, and the Lautenberg Amendment (domestic violence offender gun ban). Those laws have remained intact. No one is challenging them. Your argument that the federal government has no authority to regulate guns isn't going anywhere.
your analysis fails as usual. It was purely to keep an erratic Kennedy on board=the was being lobbied by Stevens constantly and Stevens claimed the ruling would allow people out on parole for felonies and those out on bond to buy guns etc. Act to those stupid laws=especially the 1934 NFA== all of those are clearly unconstitutional if Miller, Heller, McDonald and Bruen are actually followed.
How do you explain the parts in Heller about the acceptability of long-standing prohibitions and bans on guns not in common use?
I believe we've talked about this before. Its not part of the holding. Only the holding sets precedent. The Court only has authority to rule on what's before it. In Heller, only DC's handgun law was at issue, and the petitioner Heller had stipulated that he wasn't even challenging the legality of the law itself. His stipulation takes out of consideration whether or not the law is unconstitutional, and only allowed the court to decide if the law had been followed in a constitutional manner. They found it hadn't been, and corrected for same. During their discussion of the rule they created in the holding and the logic behind it, they point out that the rule and logic behind it fairly apply to basically any gun control law. When they make that point, they stress that these items are not before the Court and so the holding doesn't directly effect them. It is what's known as dicta (a portion of the ruling not included in the holding) and also a form of 'signposting' from the court that yes this applies but you'll need to bring us a case on point where we have jurisdiction over that issue directly before I can make it work that way.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." This sentence was in Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Virginia Constitution. But this never made it into the final version. Instead, The Viriginia Declaration of Rights (which became a model for the federal Bill of Rights) recognized the importance of a well-regulated militia: "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
And Hiller v US made it perfectly clear that the "militia" wording in no way affected the right of US citizens to bear arms and in no way changed the "shall not be infringed" wording.
Dude go drill a 3rd hole and tell me how free you feel. Texas is nice, but its not exactly the cutting edge of 2a liberty. Its very middle of the road.
Breyer (joined by Kagan and Sotomayor) questions the majority's history and tradition test in Bruen: "Judges are far less accustomed to resolving difficult historical questions. Courts are, after all, staffed by lawyers, not historians. Legal experts typically have little experience answering contested historical questions or applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems... What historical regulations and decisions qualify as representative analogues to modern laws? How will judges determine which historians have the better view of close historical questions? Will the meaning of the Second Amendment change if or when new historical evidence becomes available? And, most importantly, will the Court’s approach permit judges to reach the outcomes they prefer and then cloak those outcomes in the language of history? See S. Cornell, Heller, New Originalism, and Law Office History: 'Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss,' 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1095, 1098 (2009) (describing 'law office history' as 'a results oriented methodology in which evidence is selectively gathered and interpreted to produce a preordained conclusion').... Indeed, the Court’s application of its history-only test in this case demonstrates the very pitfalls described above. The historical evidence reveals a 700-year Anglo-American tradition of regulating the public carriage of firearms in general, and concealed or concealable firearms in particular. The Court spends more than half of its opinion trying to discredit this tradition." https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf It's also very interesting that gun activists here say that gun control must be consistent with the "nation’s historical tradition" while being eager to discount what actual historians like Saul Cornell have to say about the topic.
Stevens' main argument against Heller was claiming that he could not believe that the founders failed to give the new government gun banning powers so he was going to pretend they existed.
If there is such a strong American tradition in the 1790s at the passage of the bill of rights, I'm sure you'll have no trouble listing off a few examples.
I moved this here because you insist on discussing History in a thread about Linguistics. THIS is the correct thread for that. Please read the OP. Absolutely! Did you now read the OP? They believed that THE PEOPLE (not just American citizens, BTW) had a right to own, use, buy and keep horses, hats, boots, a house, ... guns... any type of private property. And for THAT reason they saw no need to include that in a Constitutional Amendment. In fact, when it was briefly brought up by the anti-Federalists, the idea was ridiculed by Noah Webster as I mention in the OP.
Bottom line, The Second Amendment is one of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was added to OUR Constitution to protect the rights of INDIVIDUAL AmeriCAN's. AmeriCANs have ALWAYS owned firearms, that right of ownership has ALWAYS been independent of militia membership and AmeriCANs have always had the right to own firearms that were in common use at the time. And NOPS, they didn't, don't and, never will, Historically and RightByGotNow, operate or have operated under the paradigm you're trying to defend. AmeriCAN individuals (independent of militia) have always had the right to own currently popular firearms and use them to lawfully defend themselves and for sport.
The Supreme court says otherwise and has doubled down on that with the Bruen decision. You lost, get over it. If you ever find yourself in Florida at a Home Depot next to a guy in a wheelchair, it might be me and I WILL be armed, though nobody looking at me would think so, not even a LEO. But unless you start hurting or killing someone, you have nothing to worry about at all from my sidearm. You'll never even see it. And my wheelchair is much faster than your average person walks, maybe faster than a jog, so I also won't even slow you down! Bonus!!
This thread is not about the Supreme Court. It's about the 2nd A as written and approved by Congress and the States. Even though the end result of these threads is that they demonstrate that Scalia legislated from the bench helping to increase the stream of mass shootings we have seen, that is not what they are intended for. I would appreciate it if you stayed on topic.
These United States have NEVER operated under the paradigm you claim. There is NO historical precedent for your OPINION being a functional part of law, BUT there IS 234 years of president for INDIVIDUAL AmeriCANs owning firearms, popular at the time, with no thought or consideration given to their being part of a militia ... or NOT ... or if their INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to own colloquial firearms was tied to militia membership in anyway.
