stupid question
Let's just suppose that the state of Michigan passed a law which said that all daily publications produced in that State must be printed on a particular grade of newsprint. Nobody was allowed to print such a publication on anything else, no bond paper, no paper of other colors, only the specified paper.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
Assume that the MI Supreme Court upheld this law and it went to US Supreme Court. It would be struck down based on the First Amendment, freedom of the press and free speech which states "Congress shall make no law....." Well if the First Amendment keeps States from abridging the freedom of the press why the heck doesn't the Second keep states from making gun laws?
The obvious answer is, it should, but I still had to ask the question.
0
-
Laurence Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. The argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is of questionable authority; which is now the question put before the Supreme Court in the Parker case. The relevancy of whether the Second Amendment applies to an "individual" or a "collective" right, which was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Hale, has caused a change of position by several leading legal commentators, including Professor Tribe, whose treatise on constitutional law was cited by the majority in Parker. In the most recent edition of his work, Professor Tribe now asserts that the Second Amendment protects an important right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant and that "the federal government may not disarm individuals without some unusually strong justification." See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Third Ed., Vol. 1 (2000). Still, the limits and scope of such a right are somewhat nebulous and difficult to define whatever judicial test may be applied. As the final arbiter of the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding as law on all of the states; and it is the pervasive effect of such a decision that should have all gun owners concerned. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
Laurence Tribe once told me that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. The argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right is of questionable authority; which is now the question put before the Supreme Court in the Parker case. The relevancy of whether the Second Amendment applies to an "individual" or a "collective" right, which was dismissed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Hale, has caused a change of position by several leading legal commentators, including Professor Tribe, whose treatise on constitutional law was cited by the majority in Parker. In the most recent edition of his work, Professor Tribe now asserts that the Second Amendment protects an important right that should not be dismissed as wholly irrelevant and that "the federal government may not disarm individuals without some unusually strong justification." See Laurence Tribe, American Constitutional Law, Third Ed., Vol. 1 (2000). Still, the limits and scope of such a right are somewhat nebulous and difficult to define whatever judicial test may be applied. As the final arbiter of the Constitution, the decisions of the Supreme Court are binding as law on all of the states; and it is the pervasive effect of such a decision that should have all gun owners concerned.
You reveal yourself in your statements.
The Natural Law/Rights theory was applied by the SCOTUS in its decisions up until the early 1900's, due to the clear understanding that this was the original intent and clear meaning. This sets aside all your other diatribes and negates your arguments reference the founding documents.
As to the above quote, Amendment II is very easy to understand and its intent and meaning are crystal clear. The only issue is that the gov't does not adhere to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
Your arguments hold no water sir/madame.0 -
Concerned?
Who, with any semblance of intelligence, wouldn't be?
The upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, may very well be THE major turning point, in laying the groundwork for the direction of the future, for this country. I for one, would rather it be decided NOW, whatever the outcome, rather than passing the uncertainty down to my children and their children. The same questions and uncertainties our fathers passed down to us.
We will see if the SCOTUS can figure out what the meaning of "is" is. After all, it IS just lawyers twisting words, to suit an agenda. Nothing new, we will wait to see what "their" agenda is. Howbeit we will have to live with the decision, or not. As each man must resolve what is deep down in his own heart and soul, and what price he is willing to pay, if found unacceptable.
For the VAST MAJORITY -- APATHY RUNS RAMPANT. Willing, some even helping, to secure the collar around their own throats. Those, who will be led to slaughter, without a bleat.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Concerned?
Who, with any semblance of intelligence, wouldn't be?
The upcoming ruling by the SCOTUS, may very well be THE major turning point, in laying the groundwork for the direction of the future, for this country. I for one, would rather it be decided NOW, whatever the outcome, rather than passing the uncertainty down to my children and their children. The same questions and uncertainties our fathers passed down to us.
We will see if the SCOTUS can figure out what the meaning of "is" is. After all, it IS just lawyers twisting words, to suit an agenda. Nothing new, we will wait to see what "their" agenda is. Howbeit we will have to live with the decision, or not. As each man must resolve what is deep down in his own heart and soul, and what price he is willing to pay, if found unacceptable.
For the VAST MAJORITY -- APATHY RUNS RAMPANT. Willing, some even helping, to secure the collar around their own throats. Those, who will be led to slaughter, without a bleat.
I know what you are saying pickenup, but I will emphasize for others here, that the meaning of Amendment II is clear and always has been.
The only decision of note is whether the Fed, through the SCOTUS, will be forced to recognize it for what it has always been, or whether they will finally make a definitive and overt move and make a clean break from the God-given individual freedoms secured in the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
I think that given the ever escalating attacks of the B.O.R., that we have an indicator of where this is headed, now don't we?0 -
I, for one, do not want to have my rights to own a gun protected under the Second Amendment. The problem with the Second Amendment is that the proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation; which, as made clear by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, is not prohibited by the provisions of the Second Amendment. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Prior to Miller, judicial interpretations held that the Second Amendment was a limitation on the power of Congress over states' (not individual) rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). However, the Miller decision opens the door to federal regulation of firearms as well, holding that objections that federal laws (i.e., National Fire Arms Act and the Harrison Narcotic Act) "usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable." Miller, p. 174.
What the proponents of the Second Amendment don't understand is that the ruling in Parker does not raise a justiciable challenge to United States v. Miller. To the contrary, the D.C. Court of Appeals went out of its way to reconcile its ruling with the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller. Furthermore, the respondent (Heller) would be precluded from raising a challenge to the Miller decision for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court will not overturn its prior decision, which is the controlling precedent; and what we will see is a decision governing issues that Miller did not address directly, which can only lead to more regulation lessening our rights. [NB: The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration that, while arguing in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms.] Whether the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual or a collective right is uncertain; but what is certain is that the court will not rule that an individual has an unfettered right to own a gun; and it is the effect of such a ruling on all the states in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and which could easily be resolved by remedial legislation by the Congress) that should be every gun owner's worst nightmare. To put it bluntly: it's playing Russian roulette with our rights.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Pukka Sahib
I, for one, do not want to have my rights to own a gun protected under the Second Amendment. The problem with the Second Amendment is that the proscription against infringement does not preclude regulation; which, as made clear by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Miller, is not prohibited by the provisions of the Second Amendment. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). Prior to Miller, judicial interpretations held that the Second Amendment was a limitation on the power of Congress over states' (not individual) rights. See United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875). However, the Miller decision opens the door to federal regulation of firearms as well, holding that objections that federal laws (i.e., National Fire Arms Act and the Harrison Narcotic Act) "usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable." Miller, p. 174.
What the proponents of the Second Amendment don't understand is that the ruling in Parker does not raise a justiciable challenge to United States v. Miller. To the contrary, the D.C. Court of Appeals went out of its way to reconcile its ruling with the decision of the Supreme Court in Miller. Furthermore, the respondent (Heller) would be precluded from raising a challenge to the Miller decision for the first time on appeal. The Supreme Court will not overturn its prior decision, which is the controlling precedent; and what we will see is a decision governing issues that Miller did not address directly, which can only lead to more regulation lessening our rights. [NB: The Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Bush administration that, while arguing in favor of an individual right under the Second Amendment, urged the court uphold federal gun laws restricting the possession of firearms.] Whether the Supreme Court will rule that the Second Amendment protects an individual or a collective right is uncertain; but what is certain is that the court will not rule that an individual has an unfettered right to own a gun; and it is the effect of such a ruling on all the states in a case that only affects the District of Columbia (and which could easily be resolved by remedial legislation by the Congress) that should be every gun owner's worst nightmare. To put it bluntly: it's playing Russian roulette with our rights.
If what we want is less regulation, then the last thing we want to do is to federalize the issue, as experience has shown that Congress is obsessed with regulating everything. Here the gun lobby (and the NRA) have misrepresented us, for in attempting to make gun ownership an "individual" right under the Second Amendment they have made the rights of all gun owners less secure. The way to go is not the Second Amendment - that was intended to be a limitation on the power of Congress over state militias under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and not a grant of right to individual ownership of firearms - the way to go is as individual rights retained by the people under the Ninth Amendment, and powers reserved to the several states or the people under the Tenth Amendment. At least at the state level we will have more say about our rights, which we won't have in the Congress. It is time that we, as gun owners, stop beating our heads against the wall and start using our brains.
All I can say to this misguided, albeit well worded, post is Good Lord!
I am not even going to get into picking it apart, since the poster (paleobrute perhaps?) will sprinkle court decisions and lawyerly words all about.
My bottom line point is that although it is an established fact that the courts have ruled again and again against the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights and what is its simple and clear meaning, none of that changes that simple and clear meaning.
Gov't, by its very nature will do pretty much anything to advance its power and its control over its citizens.
The SCOTUS is staffed by political appointees and those who have agendas just like all politicians do. Once in awhile, a true constitutionalist has been appointed, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Many are guilty of legislating from the bench and many have societal agendas, period.
One final point direct to the poster. What would make anyone think that the Fed will pay any more attention to the meaning of the 9th or 10th Amendment, than they do to the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment and others?0 -
quote:Originally posted by lt496
One final point direct to the poster.
This will be my last post directed to this poster as well.
Yes, we have seen all this before.
The referrals to old cases........boring.
Cases have been decided both ways.
The, "Laurence Tribe once told me"
WOW, I am SOoooo impressed.........NOT.
The right of the people........shall NOT be infringed, is clear to me.
If ignored, he/she will have a melt-down.....again.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
37 comments