Heller, Bruen, etc., should be reversed

Can you be honest enough to admit only the conservative majority's interpretation of the 2nd A at the time Heller was decided has sent us to where we are today regarding gun rights? Had Steven's dissent represented the majority view we'd be in a very different, and better, place.

 

You didn't finish the sentence. Allow me. "The documents say congress shall not infringe"...............on rights the Constitution gives the citizens. But the Constitution is ambiguous at best when it comes to gun rights. That ambiguity was abused by the conservative Court's interpretation. Pretending otherwise is folly.

Scalia held that the two portions of the Second Amendment were distinct. The “operative” portion was the part about the right to keep and bear arms; the “prefatory” part was about the militia. Resort to the “prefatory” part was only necessary if the “operative” section was ambiguous. But the operative portion was absolutely clear to the majority: The right was to keep and bear firearms for personal purposes unrelated to the organized militia. In support, Justice Scalia cited evidence from the English Declaration of Right, Blackstone’s Commentaries, and several 19th-century cases and materials that post-dated the ratifying generation. He dismissed Miller as “an uncontested and virtually unreasoned case. Justice Stevens dissented, and did so on Justice Scalia’s turf. He looked at the same historical record, the same linguistic facts, and came to the opposite conclusion: A native speaker of English, reading the words of the Second Amendment in 1791, would have understood them to convey a military meaning. Although Justice Scalia pointed to a few contrary examples, Justice Stevens quoted his own words back to him: “The Court does not appear to grasp the distinction between how a word can be used and how it ordinarily is used. Most linguists and historians agreed with Stevens’s interpretation, emphasizing that the phrase “bear arms” in 1791 was used most often in a collective, military sense.

 

quite a few learned folks are dishonest gun haters. Now I note that when it comes to a conflict between incorporation of the second and existing STATE powers, there will be a gray area where honest people can disagree-versus the federal area where the commerce clause charade is clearly dishonest. But the anti gun left, which loved courts creating phony gun control powers are now upset that a conservative court is thrashing state powers with a different interpretation. And don't forget, the left (and some of us libertarians) supported the courts striking down state laws with incorporation-such things as bans on gay marriage or interracial marriage. The interesting dichotomy is this-the left NOW opposes the use of incorporation to advance the freedom of individuals, while those on the right almost all support incorporation for that purpose

 

that assertion is quite controversial and many people find that claim to be specious. Your definition of a living document is one where the words are twisted or reinterpreted to meet your political agenda. My definition of a living document is one that can be properly amended. Big difference.

 

that's valid: Roe was a very dishonest and poorly reasoned decision that was political expediency but it was pretty much settled law. Of course the tenth amendment cases that struck down early New Deal nonsense were precedent with 100 years of support and they were quickly wiped away as well.

 

Why isn't it fair to dismiss the views of learned conservatives on the matter of the 2nd A as "dishonest gun lovers?"

In both Heller and McDonald, Justice Stevens authored powerful dissents rooted in history. Those opinions are often excerpted in constitutional law casebooks, and rightly so. But it would be a mistake to read Stevens’s opinions as nothing more than a historical mano-a-mano with Justice Scalia. In terms of Second Amendment law and theory, they are much more than that. With characteristic clarity, the first three sentences of his opinion in Heller dissolved a decades-old false dichotomy:

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

This is profoundly correct, and deftly sidesteps an unhelpful debate in which Second Amendment scholarship had been mired for decades.

 

that's a weak argument. the plain language of the second amendment clearly states that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE-a term that was used in other parts of the bill of rights and has constantly been seen as an individual right. Add that to the fact that NOTHING in ARTICLE ONE SECTION EIGHT even hints congress had a power to restrict the arms of citizens acting in a private capacity. Stevens' dissent has been widely panned as statist blathering. One of his arguments was that he couldn't believe the founders would neglect to give congress the power to restrict private arms and thus it MUST Exist. He completely ignored the fact that FEDERALISM was set up by the founders-meaning the states had exclusive powers in some areas, the federal government in others. Regulation of the USE of firearms was a state power.

 

As you know, that's disingenuous. There is nothing plain about the language other than members of a well regulated militia can possess muskets.

 

so you read the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE infringed is limited to the militia and muskets? that's the most hilarious bit of BS I have seen. Using that silly approach, wire taps don't violate the fourth, the internet is not protected under the first amendment and religions founded after 1790 are not under the protection of the first amendment

 

IF people follow the specious arguments of the anti gun left when it comes to their twisting of the second amendment, and apply that "reasoning" to the other parts of the bill of rights, the results would be sheer chaos and idiocy. Using the claim that the second amendment only protects the militia's muskets and using that standard to evaluate the other rights in the first ten amendments, the following would happen

1) torture using electricity would not violate the bill of rights
2) the police bugging telephones, planting microphones in peoples' homes, intercepting emails, hacking computers would not violate the fourth amendment
3) only manual printing presses and hand written letters and oral speeches-made without microphones or amplification, would be covered by the first amendment.


this is what happens when anti gun advocates engage in an outcome based analysis and complete disregard the entire context of the bill of rights. It's how they ignore the fact that nothing in the main body of the constitution even hints of a federal power to restrict or ban arms from private citizens

 

The Second Amendment, which reads “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,”4 is a linguistic mess. Not even the placement of the commas is certain. What is certain, though, is that for 200 years the vast majority of judges interpreted it to protect only those arms, people, and activities having some connection to an organized militia.

 

Neither responsive nor relevant. And that is complete bullshit. until 1938 and the FDR lapdog court, the supreme court never stated what you want. that some inferior courts-infested with racist judges, might have upheld STATE gun control laws is irrelevant. FIND ME ONE SUPREME COURT CASE before FDR that upheld a FEDERAL GUN CONTROL LAW

 

No, no you did not. You posted that after I posted this:

So when you posted this you knew or should have known, "attempted to" was implied.

As Pat pointed out.

You have nothing.

 

In reality, there were no federal affirmations of federal gun control law until the enigmatic and laughably outcome based Miller case was created by an anti gun judge in collusion with the FDR administration to bolster the 1934 NFA. Even then the court-which did not even hear any arguments from the defendant-who had died and had no representation before a lapdog court-couldn't come out and say what FDR hoped it would. Rather it ASSUMED that there was a valid power to essentially ban certain guns and then "found" that the second amendment did not prevent that de facto banning, The lapdog court never explained where the power to restrict those weapons was properly given to the federal government. But that was the first series of cases that sort of supported a "collective right"

 

SO you now ADMIT that your first claim about Trump was factually incorrect

I can live with that

 

Why twist it? I didn't "ADMIT" my claim was incorrect, I admitted YOU misinterpreted "my claim" or, more likely, twisted it to suit your purpose.

Remember; it's you that has abandoned the support of our beloved U.S. to defend tRaitor tRump; in your own words, "you have nothing". -sad

 

It does not say that being a member of a well regulated militia is a requirement. It only gave that as a reason. The militias did not provide the weapons. They were provided by the citizens. The militias were not in existence at all times, but the citizens were expected to be ready to join with their own weapons.

 

No one challenged gun control until Heller because the conservative Court expanded gun rights far beyond the universal understanding of the 2nd A that prevailed for two centuries.

 

that's again nonsense. You are not being accurate with your 200 year claim

and your claim about muskets and only members of the militia flies in the face of all the other parts of the bill of rights

you also ignore a plain fact about militias. Militias are not full time soldiers. militias are made up of farmers, blacksmiths, lawyers, merchants, fishermen, loggers etc. people who aren't employed as soldiers. HTF do you have an effective militia if those possible members cannot own firearms? to claim the right only vests after someone answers a call up is idiotic. And the reason why we get these silly claims is that gun banners work backwards and try to reinterpret the second to support their punitive schemes to punish gun owners with laws that only pretend to be about public safety

 

Yep-and as I noted, if people couldn't own firearms, then they couldn't really be part of an effective (well regulated-in working order) militia

NOTHING one can find in the writings of the founders NOR IN THE CONTEXT of the era and the Constitution itself-even remotely suggests the founders thought private citizens could be disarmed by the federal government

 

Can you be honest enough to admit only the conservative majority's interpretation of the 2nd A at the time Heller was decided has sent us to where we are today regarding gun rights? Had Steven's dissent represented the majority view we'd be in a very different, and better, place.

Apparently not.

 

But only when the majority of justices are conservative, right? The Supreme is imperfect but not nearly as imperfect as the other two branches of government.

 

If the SCOTUS can strike down 50 - 100 years of stare decisis, the length of which requires the upholding of same by both liberal and conservative justices, how do I know that the striking down, itself, is grounded in 'correct' thinking about the constitution? When the learned bad boys disagree with each other, and we know they do, all the time, how can anyone claim there is a correct way of looking at the constitution? And this BS about 'just read it', is crap because of the aforementioned discrepancy of varying opinions.

See, in my view, there is no correct way of thinking, there is only a majority and they can do whatever the hell they want.

THe whole point of stare decisis is stability, not 'correctness', because there is no such thing.

What I do believe, however, it should be against the law to have a 6/3 court, because, without a moderate centrist voting in a 5/4 court, there is nothing to prevent a given side of the political spectrum from descending into it's excesses. There is crazy on both sides, and without the centrist, the 'adult in the room' in a 5/4 configuration, we get extreme swings in the court, and thus the constitutional boat is rocking too intensely. A pleasure for half, but a nauseous horror for the other half. The only spot a pendulum's swinging will ever rest, is at dead center. And, is a court forever swinging too far to the left and right a good thing? I don't think it is.

 

You're just parroting Alito.

 

SCOTUS tells us what the constitution means, and opinions vary over time. Stare decisis is a principle designed to put stability into the process among the chaos of varying opinions. one man's 'twist' is another's 'correct'. There is no such thing as 'correct'. There is only a majority and they can do whatever the hell they want. Then the concern is the character and caliber of those giving these interpretations. In my view, there are some folks on the court who do not belong there, namely Alito, Thomas and Kavanaugh, as their opinions, in my view, lack the gravitas I would expect a justice to be in possession of. Kavanaugh and Thomas were both accused of sex abuse, and in my view, their accusers were credible, they were women who had nothing to gain by their accusations, and a lot to lose and their testimony was credible as the individuals were credible. But, putting that aside, I find Thomas's powers of reasoning inferior, not up to SCOTUS standards, and Kavanaugh, in my eyes, was disqualified the moment he gave that petty rant at the Senate confirmation hearing, the kind of rant one might expect of a politician, but not someone aspiring to the highest court. but these things escape the right. I don't think they are keen enough to perceive it nor is Roberts strong enough to do anything about it. If they did, as I do, there is no way they would be justices on the Supreme Court.

A word about the amendment process.

There is no way in hell the amendment process in these times, can deal with these variations of opinions. Moreover, in todays divisive world, amendments are well nigh impossible, so I don't see that as a valid argument, not in the current climate and probably for years to come.