Brady Campaign Shitstorm has started

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means?

I said there is no intelligent debate. It's kind of like someone arguing that the earth is flat. You know they are wrong, and all research and facts show they are wrong, but good luck getting it through to them that they are wrong.

9/11 conspirators fall into the same group.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means?

I said there is no intelligent debate. It's kind of like someone arguing that the earth is flat. You know they are wrong, and all research and facts show they are wrong, but good luck getting it through to them that they are wrong.

9/11 conspirators fall into the same group.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ''individual rights'' thesis whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and transportation, and a ''states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to maintain formal, organized militia units.1 Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state2 or private3 restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition, seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the maintenance of a militia or other such public force. ...

Seems to me that there's still debate. But I'm not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

SUPREME COURT CASES ON
SECOND AMENDMENT/
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

1998: MUSCARELLO v. UNITED STATES - In the dissent on defining "carries a firearm", several Justices note that "Surely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ("keep and bear Arms"). . . ."

1998: SPENCER v. KEMNA - In his dissent, Justice Stevens noted that a conviction "may result in tangible harms such as imprisonment, loss of the right to vote or to bear arms. . . ."

1997: PRINTZ, SHERIFF/CORONER, RAVALLI COUNTY, MONTANA v. UNITED STATES - Brady Background Check overturned as unfunded mandate in violation of Tenth Amendment. Justice Thomas requests a Second Amendment case.

1995: U.S. v. LOPEZ - Gun-Free School Zones Overturned as Congress exceeded its powers.

1994: ALBRIGHT v. OLIVER - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1992: PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1990: PERPICH v. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - National Guard is NOT the militia but part of Armed Forces. Militia divided into "organized" and "unorganized".

1990: UNITED STATES v. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ - The "people" under the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth & Tenth Amendments are individuals, not the States.

1980: LEWIS v. UNITED STATES - This case notes in a footnote that prohibiting felons from possessing firearms does not violate the Second Amendment.

1977: MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1973: ROE v. WADE - The court quoted POE v. ULLMAN on how the right to keep and bear arms and other rights are to have, "freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1972: ADAMS v. WILLIAMS - In the dissent, Justices Douglas & Marshall took the portions of U.S. v. MILLER toward preservation of the Militia, but noted that some controls would be Constitutional, and preferable to "watering-down" the Fourth Amendment in this case.

1972: LAIRD v. TATUM - The court quoted Chief Justice Warren on how "fear and concern of military dominance" gave rise to the Second and Third Amendments and a decentralized militia." The right to keep and bear arms is also listed with other individual rights.

1969: BURTON v. SILLS - U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to a STATE licensing law. Even today, the Second Amendment is not applied to the states.

1968: DUNCAN v. LOUISIANA - Court quotes Senator Howard, who introduced the Fourteenth Amendment for passage in the Senate, discussing why to pass the Amendment. Sen. Howard included "the right to keep and to bear arms" with other individual rights.

1965: GRISWOLD v. CONNECTICUT - In a case deciding that Connecticut's birth-control law unconstitutionally intrudes upon the right of marital privacy, Justice Goldberg writes a concurring opinion that, "I have not accepted the view that "due process" as used in the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates all of the first eight Amendments ... I do agree that the concept of liberty protects those personal rights that are fundamental, and is not confined to the specific terms of the Bill of Rights." As in other courts, the Second Amendment is listed with personal rights, and not distinguished or excluded as only a collective right.

1965: MARYLAND v. U.S. - The court found that the National Guard is the modern militia guaranteed to the states under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution but does not mention what is the Militia under the Second Amendment. See also HOUSTON v. MOORE.

1964: BELL v. MARYLAND - In a footnote on Black Codes, the court noted how "Negroes were not allowed to bear arms or to appear in all public places".

1964: MALLOY v. HOGAN - The court notes in a footnote that the Second Amendment is one of the rights not yet held applicable to the states through the 14th amendment.

1963: GIDEON v. WAINWRIGHT - The court found that Amendments that are, "fundamental safeguards of liberty" are immune from both federal and state "abridgment" under the "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. and POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA are both cited.

1961: KONIGSBERG v. STATE BAR - The court found that Free Speech and other individual rights are based on rights "transplanted from English soil." The court went on to find Free Speech to be in unqualified terms and "In this connection also compare the equally unqualified command of the Second Amendment: 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'"

1961: POE v. ULLMAN - Lists the "right to keep and bear arms" with "the freedom of speech, press, and religion;" and "the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures." The courts seemless aproach indicates that all are individual rights.

1958: KNAPP v. SCHWEITZER - The court rejected the Fifth Amendment as applying to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. "By 1900 the applicability of the Bill of Rights to the States had been rejected in cases involving claims based on virtually every provision in the first eight Articles of Amendment." The Court cited U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK for both the First and Second Amendments.

1957: GREEN v. UNITED STATES - Mentions how President Taft stated that the Philippine people secured "all the guaranties of our Bill of Rights except trial by jury and the right to bear arms." See also KEPNER v. U.S. and TRONO v. U S.

1950: JOHNSON v. EISENTRAGER - The Court found that the Fifth Amendment doesn't apply to alien enemies on occupied alien territory. The court listed the Second Amendment as a civil-right along with the First, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court also uses the term "werewolves."

1947: ADAMSON v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA - Justice Black in his dissent notes the many rights not incorporated under the Fourteen Amendment, including the Eighth Amendment, Seventh Amendment, and the Second Amendment's right of the people to keep and bear arms citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.

1939: U.S. v. MILLER - Militia-type weapons covered under Second Amendment/Militia composed of civilians primarily and bearing their own firearms. One Summary of Miller Documents. *****

1936: GROSJEAN v. AMERICAN PRESS CO. - Citing the findings from POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA , the court wrote, "We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safe-guarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...."

1934: HAMILTON v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIF. - School's requirement for military training for all male students is upheld as constitutional, citing "duty" to "support and defend government against all enemies."

1932: POWELL v. STATE OF ALABAMA - This fourteenth amendment case quotes from TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY about, "the personal rights safeguarded by the first eight Amendments against national action may also be safeguarded against state action...."

1931: U.S. v. BLAND - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she is not willing to "bear arms in defense of the U.S." See also UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER & U.S. v. MACINTOSH.

1929: UNITED STATES v. SCHWIMMER - A woman's petition for Naturalization is rejected because she was not willing to "take up arms" in defense of the U.S. The court mentioned the right to keep and bear arms and stated, "Whatever tends to lessen the willingness of citizens to discharge their duty to bear arms in the country's defense detracts from the strength and safety of the government."

1915: STEARNS v. WOOD - An officer tried to use the Second Amendment, Tenth Amendment and other Constitutional protections against limits on promotions in the National Guard, but the court refused to hear his arguments.

1908: TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY - The Court concluded that the privilege against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) wasn't incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, nor are other personal rights including the 7th Amendment, "and the right to bear arms, guaranteed by the 2d Amendment" citing PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS

1905: TRONO v. U.S. - In questioning whether an action of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, then a U.S. possession, violated an act of Congress applying most of the Bill of Rights to the Philippines, the court noted that the Act omitted "the provisions in regard to the right of trial by jury and the right of the people to bear arms, . . . . " See also KEPNER v. U.S.

1904: KEPNER v. U.S. - Noted that the act of Congress regarding rights in the Philippines forget several Amendments, including the "the right of the people to bear arms" among several others. See also TRONO v. U.S.

1900: MAXWELL v. DOW - Cited PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS on how "all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government".

1900: U S v. ELDER - The court repeatedly cited Government officials in the 1800s that provided "notice that they should keep arms sufficient for their defense."

1900: THE PANAMA - The court recognized that a ship carries guns and cannons for "self-defense" and quoted from Portalis, "defense is a natural right, and means of defense are lawful in voyages at sea, as in all other dangerous occupations of life". However, this did not apply to enemy property like the Panama.

1897: ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN - The court notes that each of the "Bill of Rights" have limitations on those rights, including the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people to keep and bear arms; double jeopardy, etc.

1896: BROWN v. WALKER - In his dissent, Justice Field quoted the counsel for the appellant: "The freedom of thought, of speech, and of the press; the right to bear arms; exemption from military dictation;. . . . . -- are, together with exemption from self-crimination, the essential and inseparable features of English liberty."

1894: MILLER v. TEXAS - Court refused to expand the Second and Fourth Amendment to the States since it was not brought up first during the trail. A very unfortunate trial mistake.

1892: LOGAN v. U.S. - The Court was faced with a question about the scope of the conspiracy statute involved in U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK. The court found that the First and Second Amendments under Cruikshank are not granted by the Constitution, but were both already existing and only a limitation on Congress. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868).

1886: PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS - Second Amendment only a limitation on Congress, not the States. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868).

1875: U.S. v. CRUIKSHANK - First and Second Amendment rights only limitation on Congress. These rights are not granted by, nor in any manner dependent, upon the Constitution. This case failed to recognize the Fourteen Amendment (Equal Protection - 1868).

1866: EX PARTE MILLIGAN - The court discounted the notion that The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments were limitations on "war-making" powers. Similarly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms would not "hinder the President from disarming insurrectionists, rebels, and traitors in arms while he was carrying on war against them."

1857: DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD - Slavery kept legal based in part on the fear that freed slaves could "carry arms wherever they went" under the Second Amendment.

1844: THE MALEK ADHEL - A piracy case where the court noted that "All vessels going to the Pacific carry arms for defence."

1820: HOUSTON v. MOORE - This case seems to distinguish the Militia powers under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and "the right to keep and bear arms." Future decisions only mention one provision or the other. See also MARYLAND v. U.S.

This is every case I could find that has relevance to or makes mention of the second amendment.

Go ahead and find one that says anyting about it not being an individual right.

My particualr favorite is Dred Scott, a case so against human rights, but it specifically states that if blacks were freed that they would have all the rights of men, including the right to carry arms wherever they went.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

***SUPREME COURT CASES ON
SECOND AMENDMENT/
RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

.

I think you just proved MY point that there's a lot of debate on the exact meaning of the 2nd. Thank you.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

there has been a lot of historical caselaw wrt equal rights, esp for blacks, but I don't think you'd say there is much debate that Americans are so entitled.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

there has been a lot of historical caselaw wrt equal rights, esp for blacks, but I don't think you'd say there is much debate that Americans are so entitled.

Are you saying that this site got it all wrong?

I haven't argued either way, but you can find dozens of essays online about what the 2nd means, offering different conclusions, and not just by pro or anti gun folks but also by law school professors. It is a fairly common topic for law students to discuss. Even the Miller case can be interpreted several ways.

To claim that there is no dispute about the actual meaning of the 2nd amendment is just silly.

Maybe I should remind everyone that the Supremes declined to overrule the Morton Grove handgun ban, which was challenged on Constitutional grounds.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

there is no doubt what the 2nd meant. Federalist Papers cover it quite well.

What the court/country wants it to mean now...open season. Many people, including you (stop lying), want it to mean something quite different. Which you have the freedom to want. But to claim that the 2nd Amendment actually supports you is dishonest.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

there is no doubt what the 2nd meant. Federalist Papers cover it quite well.

Really?

To me it seems that the amendmend really isn't that clear. What is a militia. Who did they intend to be part of this militia. When would it be well governed? Are women part of the militia? How about seniors? How about non-whites?

It really doesn't appear to be that clear.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Too bad some people can't read well.

The militia is defined very well, it is the People.

Of course this does not please those who would twist the meaning, the words Militia and or the People appear many times and means "The People" in every circumstance but yet some would change the meaning to suit themselves.

It is VERY DISHONEST.

[Andy9o8 2]

The United States Code defines "militia" as follows:

Quote

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes


(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Pretty damned clear isn't it Andy?

I wonder why so many so called "intelligent free thinkers" can't even comprehend language taht was made intentionally SIMPLE.

They have to be either stupid, uneducated, closed minded, or liars.

Take your pick.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Pretty damned clear isn't it Andy?

What I inferred from Andy's post (not really):

1 - women cannot keep and bear arms unless member of the National Guard
2 - men under 17 cannot keep and bear arms
3 - the handicapped cannot keep and bear arms
4 - men over 45 (sorry JohnRich) cannot keep and bear arms
5 - non-citizens cannot keep and bear arms

why, that's the most un_politically correct passage ever written

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[warpedskydiver 0]

John is a veteran of the USMC, he and others like him can and will be recalled regardless of age if our military and political leaders should deem it necessary.

It can happen, and has in the past as well.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

John is a veteran of the USMC, he and others like him can and will be recalled regardless of age if our military and political leaders should deem it necessary.

It can happen, and has in the past as well.

I was mucking with literal reads of the passage, but wouldn't John's inactive commitment be up, or is this a reserve's commitment thing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[warpedskydiver 0]

Able bodied can mean anyone of that group capable of bearing arms.

There were quite a few handicapped, disabled, and severly injured, including amputees in the ranks of the Continental Army, as well as the US Military past present and future.

In order to legally own a firearm in this country you must be 18 years of age and 21 for a pistol.

IMHO That is unfair and unconstitutional.(you can serve our country at 17yrs of age) and the 2nd says nothing of needing to be 21 in order to own a pistol.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

there is no doubt what the 2nd meant. Federalist Papers cover it quite well.

What the court/country wants it to mean now...open season. Many people, including you (stop lying), want it to mean something quite different. Which you have the freedom to want. But to claim that the 2nd Amendment actually supports you is dishonest.

Ultimately it means what the courts say it means. I haven't interpreted it one way or another, just pointed out that it is not as cut and dried as you seem to believe. And I have produced a lot of evidence in support of that position.

Which is why I suggested that another amendment is needed to clarify EXACTLY what the right is, to place it beyond the whims of politicians and judges.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Ultimately it means what the courts say it means.

I agree with the Professor. And the past 70 years or so have demonstrated that it doesn't even matter what previous courts say something means, the SCOTUS can change its mind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Ultimately it means what the courts say it means.

I agree with the Professor. .

As you should.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means? Really?

Of course there is debate...But most of it comes from people who really WANT it to say something other than what it says.

[jm951 0]

Why should we have another amendment if some can't even agree what the meaning of "is" is? If those folks don't get the result they want, they'll twist the language to interpret the meaning they're after.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Why should we have another amendment if some can't even agree what the meaning of "is" is? If those folks don't get the result they want, they'll twist the language to interpret the meaning they're after.

Exactly. My fear is that another Amendment would be easier to twist, not harder.

I think the intent of the 2nd is pretty clear. An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Why should we have another amendment if some can't even agree what the meaning of "is" is? If those folks don't get the result they want, they'll twist the language to interpret the meaning they're after.

Exactly. My fear is that another Amendment would be easier to twist, not harder.

I think the intent of the 2nd is pretty clear. An armed populace can overthrow a GOV that does not represent them.

How many tanks and F22s do you have?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Are you claiming that there is no debate over what the wording of the 2nd means? Really?

Of course there is debate...But most of it comes from people who really WANT it to say something other than what it says.

We have courts to adjudicate differences of opinion. Unless you are a judge YOUR opinion doesn't count for much. Please see Lawrocket's post, since apparently you do NOT understand the way the system works.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

How many tanks and F22s do you have?

Don't want the F22...It can't even fly over the international date line.

Very few people think the 2nd applies to anything other than a standard soldiers weapons. I do not agree with those who think it means we should be able to own F22's.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

We have courts to adjudicate differences of opinion. Unless you are a judge YOUR opinion doesn't count for much. Please see Lawrocket's post, since apparently you do NOT understand the way the system works.

I understand how it works maybe better than you. See the founding fathers wanted people to stay armed so the courts could not rule, nor any one person.

Hence the "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"