Guns and the Supreme Court

maporsche wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Advocate,
do u need me AGAIN
to present the quoted opinions of impartial expert professional grammarians
to the effect that the 2 A protects the right of individuals
to a libertarian, unencumbered, l'aissez faire right to KABA,
regardless of any militia ???
HOW MANY TIMES MUST I RE-DO THIS ?????

U have never, never, never offered a counterexpert, denying their professional conclusions.

I have told u, in good faith, of discussing this with OTHER experts,
English professors, 100% of whom agreed with the experts' parsing of 2 A.

Yet u persist with some, maybe a gut-feeling, is it, against freedom ??

Dave, I'm on your side in this argument, but could you post those links for me?
I'm curious to get to the bottom of this whole comma debate.

The experts whose conclusions I quoted
antedated the comma issue.

Its been a while since the last time that I exhibited them to Advocate,
over several threads. I don t remember which threads; there have been many.

If u r interested, I can do it over from the original quoted material,
but it does not address commas.

David

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

We interlopers on this site should never forget that some of the American threaders
routinely carry a gun and have one in the bedside cabinet.

Actually, I have more than one of them there.
Everything 's got to be SOMEWHERE.

Quote:

Most of us have never seen a handgun.

Its not too late.

Quote:

Having a gun secreted on the person
must make a substantial difference to how that person feels.

No.
U forget about it after a while.
The first time I armed myself I was 8 years old,
with a .38 revolver, well over half a century ago.

Its like a motorist with a spare tire and a good jack
in his trunk, or a citizen with good health insurance:
U don 't think about it much, but its better to HAVE IT
and not need it, than to NEED IT and not have it,
since it is life saving emergency equipment.

David

0 Replies

The historical analysis is pretty clear - the phrase "well-regulated militia" was associated with the population as a whole. (Well... with adult white males, anyway, but if we've expanded other rights appropriately over the centuries, there's little reason that armament should not follow!) Lots of this sort of analysis is available over on the Volokh Conspiracy, so if the legal issues interest you, you should already be reading them. ;p

It's certainly true that, situationally, the world is different from it was in 1789. Back then, the same weapons were suitable for both private defense and hunting, and for an infantryman on the battlefield. (Heck, hunting pieces tended to be more accurate until the advent of breech-loading rifles.) Private ownership of the most powerful battlefield weaponry - cannon - was clearly acceptable as well. These days, nobody wants to argue that individual homeowners have a right to armored vehicles, combat jets, fusion bombs, or even older invention such as fully-automatic machine guns.

At the same time, though, it's certainly different for a whole barrage of rights, and we clearly contemplate updating the boundaries appropriately. The Founders didn't consider a machine gun, but neither did they consider the search and seizure implications of helicopters with mounted infrared detection units, the free speech implications of blogs, or the electric chair as "cruel and unusual". We don't define those limits as "exactly what the Founders meant" - those protections are expanded as technology moves along.

At any rate, it's not like it'll have much of an effect here - I'm in Texas, so I have an individual right through state law even if the federal government doesn't provide that right. ;p

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

At the same time, though, it's certainly different for a whole barrage of rights, and we clearly contemplate updating the boundaries appropriately.

That sounds suspiciously like you believe in a "living constitution." Don't let Antonin Scalia hear you say that.

0 Replies

Dave, you would do very well in the Bush administration. Over the years, Bush comes up with one excuse after another for fighting in Iraq, usually after the previous excuse was shot down. You manage to come up with one reason or another for your position that A2 applies to the people in general. Your latest is that the meaning of "people" in a provision of the constitution is exactly the same throughout the document. Of course, there is no support for that proposition.

In your heart of hearts you know damn well that Verdugo IS obiter dictum. It is not even an A2 case, and is certainly not dispositive in the instant matter. Miller, however, is dispositive. This SC case provides that government may regulate the right of the general public to bear. You previously admitted that this holding was problematic to your position that A2 provided an unfettered right of the general public to bear.

But the members of the present results-oriented majority are hardly strict constructionists, and are quite willing to ignore the clear words and meaning of A2.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Avatar ADV wrote:
At the same time, though, it's certainly different for a whole barrage of rights, and we clearly contemplate updating the boundaries appropriately.

That sounds suspiciously like you believe in a "living constitution." Don't let Antonin Scalia hear you say that.

You're mean. (I always liked that about you, except when you were debating with me of course.)

Any bets about the outcome of the case, based on yesterday's hearing? To me, it looks as if the handgun ban is going to fall by at least a 5-4 vote. Kennedy is clearly leaning towards recognizing an individual right, and a fairly broad one at that. Breyer seems to be looking for middle ground (individual right, but constrained to maintaining readiness for serving in the militia). The majority may expand to 6-3 if the conservatives win him over. Which they may, if they throw out the handgun ban for sufficiently narrow reasons.

0 Replies

Advocate,
Please tell me, HONESTLY,
whether u take the time to READ
my posts in response to yours.

Do U ?

Advocate wrote:

Dave, you would do very well in the Bush administration.

I 've said, several times and in all candor,
that I never liked the Bushes.
When Reagan put him on the ticket, to balance Reagan 's OWN conservatism,
I said it was a mistake.
I eagerly supported BOTH Gulf Wars.
There is NO REASON to remain there,
nor was there as soon as we disposed of Saddam,
but this is all off topic.

Quote:

Over the years, Bush comes up with one excuse after another
for fighting in Iraq, usually after the previous excuse was shot down.
You manage to come up with one reason or another for your position
that A2 applies to the people in general.

I just look and tell u my observations,
the same as if u ask me about the weather and I look out the window.

Quote:

Your latest is that the meaning of "people" in a provision of the constitution
is exactly the same throughout the document.

I 've been saying that since 1990.

Quote:

Of course, there is no support for that proposition.

This is conspicuous error.
The USSC has been explicit on this point.
Complain the FOUNDERS of the Constitution.
It wud have made no sense for them to use the same word
with contradictory meanings thru out the Constitution.
Thay were not that stupid.

If YOU had been among them, writing it, Advocate
wud U have used words secretly intending them
to have inconsistent meanings ?
Wud U have done that, or recommended that, Advocate ??
Please tell us, if u don t mind.

Quote:

In your heart of hearts you know damn well that Verdugo IS obiter dictum.

Y ?
By what reasoning is it obiter dictum ?

As I have already pointed out,
the USSC RELIED UPON that reasoning to decide the VERDUGO case.
What more do u want ?? Please explain ? I await your enlightenment.

Quote:

It is not even an A2 case,

How about THE SLAUGHTER HOUSE CASES ?
Thay have been accepted as binding precedent
as to the WHOLE Bill of Rights, tho issue b4 the court did not
concern each of the amendments.

Quote:

and is certainly not dispositive in the instant matter.

It is a dispositive definition of WHO THE PEOPLE ARE.
If u believe that the USSC fell into error in this case,
then please explain how.
The court found that " the people " are the same people thru out
the text of the Constitution of 1787 and thru out the Bill of Rights.
If u can DISPROVE that, then please disprove it,
and please explain the reason that the Founders wanted to employ
inconsistency in the Supreme Law of the Land.

Quote:

Miller, however, is dispositive.

MILLER only reversed and remanded the case
on a technical point of evidentiary law, qua judicial notice,
because the USSC wanted testimony as to whether
defendants' sawn off shotgun was still a function weapon
because 2 A only protects possession of weapons
and protects the right to organize private militia.

2 A does not protect a right to possess useless junk.

I wish u had commented upon my observation ( hereinbefore set forth )
that this objection wud not have applied to an SMG,
since their use to militia is more obvious.

Quote:

This SC case provides that government may regulate
the right of the general public to bear.

Yes, but ONLY if it is NOT a functional weapon,
because ONLY FUNCTIONAL WEAPONS HAVE 2 A PROTECTION.

In other words, if chopping off the barrel below 18"
mutilated it beyond use as a weapon, THEN it lost 2 A protection.
This is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction.

Quote:

You previously admitted that this holding was problematic to your position
that A2 provided an unfettered right of the general public to bear.

??
What did I say ???

Quote:

But the members of the present results-oriented majority are hardly strict constructionists,
and are quite willing to ignore the clear words and meaning of A2.

I must disagree with your analysis, Advocate.
I believe that your reasoning is flawed.

David

0 Replies

Permit me to add, Advocate, that
the Founders were LIBERTARIAN GUN LOVERS,
like me, who 'd eagerly condemn the NRA for giving away the store,
in its obsession to compromise our liberty.

David

0 Replies

Avatar ADV wrote:

These days, nobody wants to argue that individual homeowners have a right to .... fully-automatic machine guns.

Ahem.

0 Replies

David, I usually do read your posts, replies or not, fairly carefully. However, some of them cover multiple points, to which I don't have unlimited time to analyze and craft replies. I do a lot of other good things in addition to my involvement with A2K.

Regarding Verduga, which in my view is clearly dicta with regard to A2, please give me the wording therein that states that "people" means the same throughout the document. I contend that the meaning is affected by the context in which the term is used.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Any bets about the outcome of the case, based on yesterday's hearing?

We're going to win. Next step is to sue Chicago to secure Fourteenth Amendment incorporation.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Avatar ADV wrote:
At the same time, though, it's certainly different for a whole barrage of rights, and we clearly contemplate updating the boundaries appropriately.

That sounds suspiciously like you believe in a "living constitution." Don't let Antonin Scalia hear you say that.

You're mean. (I always liked that about you, except when you were debating with me of course.)

Any bets about the outcome of the case, based on yesterday's hearing? To me, it looks as if the handgun ban is going to fall by at least a 5-4 vote. Kennedy is clearly leaning towards recognizing an individual right, and a fairly broad one at that. Breyer seems to be looking for middle ground (individual right, but constrained to maintaining readiness for serving in the militia).

Well, if bearing arms is for military puposes, for serving among militia,
will that then secure the private right to possess such combat
equipment as mortars, battle tanks and heavy artillery ?

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

You're mean. (I always liked that about you, except when you were debating with me of course.)

Any bets about the outcome of the case, based on yesterday's hearing? To me, it looks as if the handgun ban is going to fall by at least a 5-4 vote. Kennedy is clearly leaning towards recognizing an individual right, and a fairly broad one at that. Breyer seems to be looking for middle ground (individual right, but constrained to maintaining readiness for serving in the militia). The majority may expand to 6-3 if the conservatives win him over. Which they may, if they throw out the handgun ban for sufficiently narrow reasons.

I haven't been following the story very closely, and I haven't read the transcript of the oral argument. My impression is that there are only two positions being considered: either a collective right tied to militia service, or else an individual right that is unconnected to the militia. No one, it seems, is leaning toward my intermediate position: an individual right that is conditioned on the requirements of the militia.

Nevertheless, I still think that, even though the majority of the court will vote in favor of the individual rights position, there is a good chance that the majority will fail to come up with a unified opinion that attracts five votes. Scalia and Thomas will probably vote for the most unlimited second amendment right, where the militia clause is reduced to an irrelevancy (indeed, Thomas might issue his own concurrence that goes even farther than Scalia). Roberts and Alito might choose to limit their opinions by saying that, while they don't know how far the government's ability to limit the right to bear arms goes, it doesn't go as far as DC's ordinance. Kennedy could probably be persuaded to join that kind of argument. With that kind of splintered majority, we may still be left with no clear idea of the extent of the second amendment even after the court issues its decision.

Nobody, it seems, is looking to take the easy way out, which is to adopt the argument of the dissent in the appellate court and say that the second amendment doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state. As I noted before, I haven't read the transcript, but I didn't see any commentator mention this as one of the points brought out during oral argument. It would be an easy way to avoid the substantive issue presented in this case, but it looks like the court is finally prepared, and even eager, to deal with the second amendment head-on.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Well, if bearing arms is for military puposes, for serving among militia,
will that then secure the private right to possess such combat
equipment as mortars, battle tanks and heavy artillery ?

Both Breyer and Ginsburg raise this question, but I don't remember what the counsels' answers were. I'm not sure they had cogent answers at all. I encourage you to read the transcript of the oral argument. It's very interesting. I'm just swamped with work this week, so I couldn't read it with full concentration. (HofT posted a link to the transcript a few pages back.)

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I haven't been following the story very closely, and I haven't read the transcript of the oral argument. My impression is that there are only two positions being considered: either a collective right tied to militia service, or else an individual right that is unconnected to the militia. No one, it seems, is leaning toward my intermediate position: an individual right that is conditioned on the requirements of the militia.

If that's your position, I think Breyer is your man. He asked a lot of questions along this line.

joefromchicago wrote:

Nevertheless, I still think that, even though the majority of the court will vote in favor of the individual rights position, there is a good chance that the majority will fail to come up with a unified opinion that attracts five votes. Scalia and Thomas will probably vote for the most unlimited second amendment right, where the militia clause is reduced to an irrelevancy (indeed, Thomas might issue his own concurrence that goes even farther than Scalia). Roberts and Alito might choose to limit their opinions by saying that, while they don't know how far the government's ability to limit the right to bear arms goes, it doesn't go as far as DC's ordinance. Kennedy could probably be persuaded to join that kind of argument. With that kind of splintered majority, we may still be left with no clear idea of the extent of the second amendment even after the court issues its decision.

Surprisingly little disagreement, I'm embarrassed to say. I think the most likely outcome, based on the transcript, is that Breyer or Kennedy will write the opinion of the court. The opinion will throw out the hand gun ban, with some narrow reasoning to support it. Scalia and Thomas will concur in judgment, and may or may not join it in full. Either way, they will write a separate opinion, arguing for a broad, individual right not limited to militia service. Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and maybe Breyer, will dissent, which I hope will be written by Ginsburg. (I don't often agree with her, but I enjoy reading her opinions.) The open question is whether or not the majority will prefer to have Breyer's vote at the cost of a narrower reasoning, or a broader reasoning at the cost of loosing Breyer. That'll be decided by behind-the-door Supreme Court politics, and isn't predictable from the transcript.

joefromchicago wrote:

Nobody, it seems, is looking to take the easy way out, which is to adopt the argument of the dissent in the appellate court and say that the second amendment doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state.

Indeed I didn't find that point made or argued in the transcript.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

David, I usually do read your posts, replies or not, fairly carefully.

I bring up the question
because u have ofen asked me, challenged me,
on points that I already explained in some considerable depth of detail
( in answer to your earlier questions ) and u appear not to know
that I already answered and explained that in depth.

I hope that u can appreciate that if I invest the time
to respond to u, at length,
I 'd rather not keep re-inventing the wheel too many times.

Quote:

However, some of them cover multiple points,

Usually in response to YOUR earlier multiple questions or comments

Quote:

to which I don't have unlimited time to analyze and craft replies.
I do a lot of other good things in addition to my involvement with A2K.

Regarding Verduga, which in my view is clearly dicta with regard to A2,
please give me the wording therein that states that "people" means the same
throughout the document. I contend that the meaning is affected by the context in which the term is used.

UNITED STATES, Petitioner
v.
Rene Martin VERDUGO URQUIDEZ.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued Nov. 7, 1989.

Decided Feb. 28, 199O.
Rehearing Denied April 16, 199O

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
...

The Fourth Amendment provides:

"[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

That text, by contrast with the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, extends its reach
only to "the people." Contrary to the suggestion of amici curiae that
the Framers used this phrase "simply to avoid [an] awkward rhetorical redundancy,"
Brief for American Civil Liberties Union as Amici Curiae et al. 12, n. 4,
"the people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts
of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained
and established by "the People of the United States."
The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,"
and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers
are retained by and reserved to "the people."

See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1, ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . .
the right of the people peaceably to assemble"); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1
("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year
by the People of the several States") (emphasis added).
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that
"the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments,
and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments,
refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community
or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country
to be considered part of that community.

THE SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTS
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS," and the Ninth
and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by
and reserved to "the people."

See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging...
the right of the people peaceably to assemble");
Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States").
While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive,
it suggests that "THE PEOPLE" PROTECTED BY THE FOURTH AMENDMENT,
AND BY THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS, and to whom rights and powers
are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to A CLASS OF PERSONS
who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed
sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.
...
The available historical data show, therefore, that the purpose of the
Fourth Amendment was to protect the people of the United States against
arbitrary action by their own Government;

... To support his all encompassing view of the Fourth Amendment,
respondent points to language from the plurality opinion in Reid v. Covert,
354 U.S. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1222, 1 L.Ed.2d 1148 (1957).
Reid involved an attempt by Congress to subject the wives of American
servicemen to trial by military tribunals without the protection of the Fifth
and Sixth Amendments. The Court held that it was unconstitutional to
apply the Uniform Code of Military Justice to the trials of the American
women for capital crimes. Four Justices "reject [ed] the idea that when
the United States acts against citizens abroad it can do so free of the Bill
of Rights." Id., at 5, 77 S.Ct., at 1224 (emphasis added). The plurality went on to say:
"The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution.
Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in
accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. ... [ ALL emphasis added by David ]

Take what comfort u can find, Advocate,
in the court's saying that its exegesis is not conclusive.
It remains there and has been there for about 18 years.

All I care about is that all of my fellow citizens of America and NY
will be secure again in their constitutional rights to walk down the street
with as many loaded guns secreted upon their persons as thay see fit.
David

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Surprisingly little disagreement, I'm embarrassed to say. I think the most likely outcome, based on the transcript, is that Breyer or Kennedy will write the opinion of the court. The opinion will throw out the hand gun ban, with some narrow reasoning to support it. Scalia and Thomas will concur in judgment, and may or may not join it in full. Either way, they will write a separate opinion, arguing for a broad, individual right not limited to militia service. Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens, and maybe Breyer, will dissent, which I hope will be written by Ginsburg. (I don't often agree with her, but I enjoy reading her opinions.) The open question is whether or not the majority will prefer to have Breyer's vote at the cost of a narrower reasoning, or a broader reasoning at the cost of loosing Breyer. That'll be decided by behind-the-door Supreme Court politics, and isn't predictable from the transcript.

Let me outline one possible scenario: In conference, there are six votes to affirm the appellate court: Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Breyer. Roberts initially assigns the opinion to Breyer, in order to retain his vote, but his initial opinion is met with resistance from Scalia and Thomas, who say they won't join Breyer's narrow decision. So Roberts, assuming the conciliator mantle of John Marshall that he had carefully stowed in his closet right after his confirmation hearings, announces that he will write the majority opinion because ... well, because he's the chief justice and this is a major constitutional issue. Breyer, miffed, decides that he'll still issue his opinion, this time as a separate concurrence. Scalia joins Roberts's opinion, but feels compelled to add his own concurring opinion to explain why the government might still be able to ban the private ownership of machine guns (although Scalia will be careful to point out that this issue is not before the court). Thomas joins in the result only, but issues a separate concurrence in which he explains that the government can't ban the private ownership of machine guns. Ginsburg writes the dissent, in which Souter and Stevens join. Stevens issues his own separate dissent, because that's what Stevens always does.

End result -- Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, and Scalia (with reservations) issue the plurality opinion, Breyer and Thomas join as to the result only, and Ginsburg, Souter, and Stevens (with some additional odd, idiosyncratic comments) dissent: a 4-1-1 to 3 decision (and six opinions) to uphold the appellate court, without any majority in favor of a single position.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
Nobody, it seems, is looking to take the easy way out,
which is to adopt the argument of the dissent in the appellate court and say
that the second amendment doesn't apply to DC because it's not a state.

Indeed I didn't find that point made or argued in the transcript.

This shud not be judged by anachronistic language
representing inaccurate anachronistic concepts of the 21st Century
concerning militia.

Originally the term " militia " meant the people themselves,
in an armed condition, as distinct from the government 's army.

Subsequently, governments started using civilians who were part-time soldiers
armed at the public expense, and under government control.
These militia were called " selected militia " ( selected by government ).
Such militia are represented in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

" Well regulated militia " were as distinct from government " selected militia ".
The term "well regulated militia " meant 2 things:
1 ) private militia who maintained sufficient self discipline
as not to be boisterous, not shooting up the town
and
2 ) who had been drilled well enuf in combat skills of the day
to be effective in battle.

When the 2 A speaks of a well regulated militia protecting
the security of a free state, it does not say protecting THE GOVERNMENT
of that state.
It meant private citizens ( like volunteer fire depts. ) defending
THE PEOPLE, the citizens of that state from Indians, wolves or bears etc.

When George Mason and George Washington formed
the Fairfax County Militia Organization, thay did not have permission from the King to do it.
Hence, thay were private, well regulated militia who were brought into
military conflict with the established Virginia Colonial Militia ( a selected militia ).

It is anachronistic misconception that the 2 A refers to securing state GOVERNMENTS.
It was not the goal of 2 A to repeal the prohibition of
Art. I §1O sub-§3, against states keeping troops.
That did not happen.

We know from history that at the time that the Bill of Rights was passed
by Congress and ratified by the States, there was no movement to repeal
Article I §10 sub-§3 of the Constitution against the States keeping troops.

When President Eisenhower stripped away the State Militia of Arkansas,
for Federal use in 1957, away from the control of Governor Orval Faubus,
no one complained that Ike was violating the Second Amendment.

When the Kennedy bothers did the same thing to Governor George Wallace
of Alabama in 1963, after everyone had FIVE YEARS to ponder what had happened
to the State of Arkansas, again NO ONE complained ( not either Governor,
nor the Attorney General of the US, nor the Attorney General of Arkansas,
nor the Attorney General of Alabama, nor any Bar Association, nor the KKK )
that there was a violation of the Second Amendment.

If the Second Amendment were enacted to protect the rights of State GOVERNMENTs
to keep militia, against the prohibition of Article I §10,
then why was there no objection when the protected rights of two State GOVERNMENTs
to do so were violated ? The answer is that NOBODY really beleives that
the Constitution was amended to protect the rights of government militia.

( I need not bring up how the rights in question are situate among a string
of private PERSONAL RIGHTS, not state government rights. )

David

0 Replies

Machineguns r crew served weapons.
Thay were intended for service by 2 men;
somewhat awkward by size, weight, and that tripod hanging down.
Rather ungainly for personal use.

However, compact submachineguns ( like the 9mm H&K MP5 KA4 )
can be superb home defense anti-burglary weapons.
Short range, so as hopefully not to disturb the neighbors.
Surprizingly little recoil; as if H&K repealed Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion.

In US v. MILLER, the USSC held that the weapons whose
possession was protected were
"ordinary military equipment...AYMETTE v. STATE 2 Hump. [21 Tenn] 154, 158."
The AYMETTE case, which the Supreme Court approvingly adopted declares:
"the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually
employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute ordinary military equipment.
If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the
best possible manner to repel any encroachments on their rights."

David

0 Replies

David, thanks for all your work on this issue.

While I understand your argument regarding the use of "the people," the court did not address the question, regarding A2, whether "the people" are limited to members of the militia. As I said, Verduga is not an A2 case and, thus, is definitely dicta in the current litigation.

Regarding the many other things you bring up, we have covered them in the past ad nauseam. For instance, you have effectively contended, as I recall, that the militia wording in A2 merely provides a rationale relative to the independent clause on the "right to bear." I continue to contend that the constitution, like all other federal law, does not insert rationale in a provision of law. Thus, the "militia" clause is a condition precedent to the later "right to bear" clause.

0 Replies

Guns and the Supreme Court

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know