HERE IS A PRO-FREEDOM CASE CITED BY THE USSC

Forums: Legal, Law
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Here is a nice pro-freedom case to which the USSC has cited with approval
in D.C. v. Heller 554 US 290; 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008)

The USSC says the following:

In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court
construed the Second Amendment as
protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore
struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly.

Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause
[i.e.: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"]
of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in
the prefatory clause, [i.e., the militia clause]
in continuity with the English right:

“The right of the whole people,
old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only,
to keep and bear arms of every description,
and not such merely as are used by the militia,
shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon,
in the smallest degree;
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant
to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right,
originally belonging to our forefathers,
trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked
sons and successors, re-established by the revolution
of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists,
and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!”

[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,263 • Replies: 8

No top replies

Comments r welcome.

David

0 Replies

Its always a bit of a thrill
to see the USSC issuing libertarian decisions.

David

0 Replies

Quote:

and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

What value would small arms be to a militia? I assume youmean so you can shoot invaders.
I would also assume any invaders would be armed with modern technology. I dont think you 6 gun is gonna get you very far.

Why is this so vitally important to your security?

1 Reply

@dadpad,

dadpad wrote:

Quote:
and all this for the important end to be attained:
the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia,
so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.

What value would small arms be to a militia? I assume youmean so you can shoot invaders.
I would also assume any invaders would be armed with modern technology.
I dont think you 6 gun is gonna get you very far.

Why is this so vitally important to your security?

Here is how the USSC addresses this question in HELLER:

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned,
then the Second Amendment right is completely detached
from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,
but the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."

[All emphasis has been lovingly added by David.]

0 Replies

Quote:

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,
but the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Quote:

the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification

Here is where i believe the people who support this amendment unchanged are getting it wrong.
Move into the present and update your laws to reflect modern society.

The body of evidence that restricted gun ownership helps to creates a stable society is large and proven across many cultures..

Fit and proper persons with a need for legitimate use for firearms can easily be licenced for ownership after due process.

1 Reply

@dadpad,

Quote:

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks,
but the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Quote:

the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification

dadpad wrote:

Here is where i believe the people who support this amendment unchanged are getting it wrong.
Move into the present and update your laws to reflect modern society.

ABSOLUTELY NOT. Government has only that authority which was granted to it by the Constitution.
Control of guns was put beyond its reach.

Among the reasons for so doing was, in theory,
to enable overthrow of government again,
as the Founders had just finished doing.

Every individual citizen shoud be armed to the teeth
(with chronic criminals and the mentally sick ISOLATED
and ideally removed from the NOrth American Continent).

Fighting against gun control
is fighting against collectivism and against authoritarianism.

Fighting against gun control is fighting for laissez faire capitalism.

dadpad wrote:

The body of evidence that restricted gun ownership helps to creates a stable society is large and proven across many cultures..

I don t give a rat 's ass. I demand a weak n feeble government, with the INdividual looming large,
dominating a scrawny, puny (domestic) government. THAT is the Constitutional scheme.
Big government is not legitimate n is unAmerican.

dadpad wrote:

Fit and proper persons with a need

ONly the dead in the cemetaries have no need of self defense.

dadpad wrote:

for legitimate use for firearms can easily be licenced for ownership after due process.

Being given a license from our low life employee to excercise a Constitutional right is an INDIGNITY.

HOW do u square your concept
with the Constitutional imperative of equal protection of the laws ?

David

0 Replies

Interestingly, in HELLER,
the USSC cites WITH APPROVAL:

In the famous fugitive-slave case of Johnson v. Tompkins,
13 F. Cas. 840, 850, 852 (CC Pa. 1833), Baldwin,
sitting as a circuit judge, cited both the Second Amendment
and the Pennsylvania analogue
for his conclusion that a citizen has “a right to carry arms
in defence of his property or person, and to use them,
if either were assailed with such force, numbers or violence
as made it necessary for the protection or safety of either.”

[All emphasis has been added by David.]

0 Replies

Here 's a nice quip from the USSC in HELLER:

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right
whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.
The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch
of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.
A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’
assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood
to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures
or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad. We would not apply
an “interest-balancing” approach to the prohibition of a peaceful neo-Nazi
march through Skokie. See National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie,
432 U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam).

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified,
which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets,
but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views.

The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product
of an interest-balancing by the people—which JUSTICE BREYER would now
conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation
it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding,
responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

[All emphasis has been added by David.]

0 Replies

HERE IS A PRO-FREEDOM CASE CITED BY THE USSC

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know