Today's lesson in the constitution

[Abatis]

The right loves “original intent” until it no longer suits their purpose. The 2nd is a perfect example, as the original intent was in the context of a militia, not unlimited personal possession.

How can a right be -contexted- into being qualified or conditioned by the words of the 2ndA, when the right in no manner depends on those words to exist?

If the right pre-exists the Constitution and no aspect of the right was conferred to the federal government, how can you interpret dependence when such a conclusion is expressly rejected by the framers (see evince's quote of Federalist 84 in post 70) and by 131 years and counting of SCOTUS rulings enforcing that principle? (see my post #80)?

.

 

[domer76]

Do you understand how that proves you and your "well regulated" mantra wrong?

The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is in no manner dependent on the words of the Constitution. AND, because the organized, official militia is a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon a citizen's membership in the organized militia (established by Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16), or conditioned upon a citizen meeting any training standard that is created under militia law authorized by the militia clauses of the Constitution.

Face it, you are just irredeemably wrong on every point you present. When SCOTUS says, neither is the right to arms in any manner dependent on the Constitution it means, THE RIGHT IS IN NO MANNER DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION . . .

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for 131 years and counting:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."


Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "


Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

​

Sweetpea, the ONLY thing that can be concluded from reading the 2nd Amendment is that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

.

Ain’t it the shits that it IS infringed?

 

[Abatis]

Always had a problem with the whole originalist theory, you pointed out a good example, they put aside the precedents of two hundred of Supreme Court rulings on the Amendment when they decided to just skip over the prefatory clause

The Supreme Court never recognized any such interpretation and they never enforced any such thing in any majority opinion.

The "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations of the 2nd Amendment were first inserted in the federal court systems in two lower Circuit court opinions both handed down in 1942. Those lower court decisions, U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) and, Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) had been used for 66 years to uphold / affirm hundreds of federal, state and local gun laws contested on 2nd Amendment grounds, until DC v Heller invalidated them (and their illegitimate progeny).

 

[Abatis]

The main problem with original intent is not the concept but determining what the original intent was. The Heller case is a good example in that both sides wrote a long historical analysis of the meaning of the 2nd and both sides present reasonable arguments.

As an originalist I hate that Scalia undertook a textual analysis f the 2nd Amendment. Heller should have been 3 pages long and relied on SCOTUS precedent that the right is a pre-existing right and not granted by the 2nd. That would have dispensed with all DC and its amici arguments in support of the DC statutes.

I don't think the original intent of the 2nd is very important since all interpretations allow gun regulations.

Well, that all depends on what your definition is of "regulations". I would first like to point out that regulations are written to assure proper function, not to end all function.

Except in extreme cases there is nothing the anti-gun people want to regulate that can't be regulated under current interpretation.

I would beg to differ.

It is the political unwillingness of legislative bodies to pass those regulations rather than any interpretation that prevents those regulations from passing although they do exist in some states.

I have said since Heller was handed down that the left doesn't know what Heller means. They have consistently lied about it and misrepresented what it did and refuse to accept that the singular question of whether the 2nd secures an individual or "collective" right is dead. It's almost like they never read the two dissenting opinions that have stipulated to the facts that the individual right interpretation is the correct one, that the individual right interpretation is what is represented in Supreme Court precedent and that the entire court agreed with those facts. Stevens dissent, with that admission, is especially repugnant.

That states that have no RKBA provision have enacted laws is not really noteworthy. Those states have always been the ones to be the most oppressive. We will see that those laws will be challenged and some will make it to the SCOTUS and the final determination will be made. I know I can offer supported argument for why they will be invalidated; can you offer supported argument why you think they will pass constitutional muster?

 

[Abatis]

"The right to enter the theater, for people who bought a ticket, shall not be infringed." Right-winger: "You can't top me from entering the theater, it doesn't say I had to buy a ticket!"

"A well-informed Electorate, being necessary to the function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Left-winger: Only registered voters can own books and you can only read books that pertain to political subjects in preparation for voting.

 

[Abatis]

Marbury v. Madison that gave the court the power of judicial review was just a brilliant way to avoid looking powerless while giving itself a powerful new weapon. But many argue that judicial review was originally intended; otherwise, there is nothing restricting the powers of the legislative and executive branches.

But Marbury set-out rules for judges and Justices to follow.

I would argue that left-leaning judges don't follow those rules because they don't even understand the language they are written in.

 

[Craig234]

"A well-informed Electorate, being necessary to the function of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

Left-winger: Only registered voters can own books and you can only read books that pertain to political subjects in preparation for voting.

If that's how the right was written, it WOULD imply a limit of the right to books relevant to voters being informed for voting.

But that's not the constitutional issue for books. And until people use books to kills thousands of citizens annually smashing them over their head, the government's interest in them is not the same.

 

[Abatis]

The original wording of the 2nd by Madison. Read it and weep, idiot.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed, and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.''

Madison wasn't the author of the proposals, he was the compiler and editor.

The addition of a bill of rights was demanded by some states with a few making their ratification of the Constitution contingent upon having a bill of rights.

Some states sent written proposals to Madison. Virginia's was very influential and is the one that suggested the "religiously scrupulous" language. It was not within Madison's power to exclude it so it became part of the original draft.

It of course has no presence in the final ratified version.

There's nothing to weep about . . .

 

[Abatis]

The right claims they can ferret out what the writers of the constitution were thinking and what their intent was. That is mental gymnastics and untrue. Scalia was a great example of a judge who appointed himself the ultimate knower of intent. It was BS.

Certain unalterable, unchangeable, unevolving foundational principles force one, no matter how many years have passed since the original ratification, to accept and apply certain truths to his/her understanding of the Constitution.

Combined with knowledge of the political treatises the founders framers embraced and considered instructional for forming our Republic (John Locke, Algernon Sidney and others considered "the elementary books of public right") gives one a framework by which proposed laws and policy can be judged. Having knowledge and understanding of the political treatises the founders / framers disdained and discarded (Jean Bodin, Sir Robert Filmer) is also important.

When elected officials sound more like the latter than the former you know who should have your support.

.

 

[Abatis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._84


post 70

post 80

 

[evince]

Do you understand how that proves you and your "well regulated" mantra wrong?

The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment, thus the right is in no manner dependent on the words of the Constitution. AND, because the organized, official militia is a structure that is itself entirely dependent upon the Constitution for its existence, the right to arms can not be argued to be qualified upon a citizen's membership in the organized militia (established by Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16), or conditioned upon a citizen meeting any training standard that is created under militia law authorized by the militia clauses of the Constitution.

Face it, you are just irredeemably wrong on every point you present. When SCOTUS says, neither is the right to arms in any manner dependent on the Constitution it means, THE RIGHT IS IN NO MANNER DEPENDENT ON THE CONSTITUTION . . .

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent re-re-re-affirming this principle for 131 years and counting:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."


Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "


Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”

​

Sweetpea, the ONLY thing that can be concluded from reading the 2nd Amendment is that, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

.

and that same SCOTUS has approved gun laws idiot

 

[evince]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/


By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Monday, November 27, 2017
The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.
The justices denied both cases without comment, leaving in place lower-court rulings upholding the two laws.


note the date

 

[Abatis]

Ain’t it the shits that it IS infringed?

By laws that have not been challenged or have been challenged and were upheld with invalid legal reasoning before Heller. In 1942 in the lower federal courts, the "collective right" interpretation was inserted in the federal court system. This was done to frustrate and negate claims of citizens of a right to arms violation. There are literally hundreds of laws that have been sustained because the 2nd only secured a "state's right" to form a militia . . . Do you understand that the legal support for those laws has been knocked away, that they stand on nothing?

I'll grant you that this perversion did work for 66 years until SCOTUS slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold in 2008. Since then challenges and appeals have slowed or gone sideways, no real advancement has happened but these corrections take time.

As SCOTUS said, Heller was not an exhaustive examination of the RKBA / 2nd Amendment but with what has been settled over the last 130+ years, certain truths are known. I'm not worrying about anything.

 

[Abatis]

If that's how the right was written, it WOULD imply a limit of the right to books relevant to voters being informed for voting.

Well, we all know just how profound your ignorance is, of constitutional rights theory.

 

[Abatis]

and that same SCOTUS has approved gun laws idiot

Which specific laws has SCOTUS approved? They have only heard a handful of cases that implicate the 2nd Amendment; Presser, (1886) Miller (1939), Lewis (1980), Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010).

Presser upheld a state law forbidding private militia groups, Miller upheld a tax law mandating a tax on the transfer of a sawed-off shotgun, Lewis upheld felon dispossession, Heller invalidated DC's handgun ban and other laws, McDonald invalidated Chicago's handgun ban.

So, what "approved" laws are you talking about?

And I notice that you avoided addressing the point I was making and instead chose to divert.
I guess that is slightly better than just ignoring but not by much.
Interesting that I never feel the need to do that . . . I strive to specifically address whatever point is being raised.
I guess that's the difference between having the truth on my side and you just faking it for political agenda advancement.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/27/scotus-upholds-ban-assault-weapons-open-carry/


By Alex Swoyer - The Washington Times - Monday, November 27, 2017
The Supreme Court announced Monday it had declined to hear two Second Amendment cases, leaving intact gun control laws in Maryland that restrict the types of weapons that can be bought, and in Florida that largely prevent gun owners from carrying their weapons in the open.
The justices denied both cases without comment, leaving in place lower-court rulings upholding the two laws.


note the date

No harm, no foul. I would have liked to see the Court take on the Maryland law because it would have been such an easy win since the legal reasoning is so utterly ridiculous but I guess the Court felt the issue wasn't ripe yet. Gun rights enforcement is going to take years, perhaps decades just like other federal rights enforcements. We just need to be patient.

The district and Circuit opinions that have upheld NY's Safe Act and Maryland's assault weapon ban (among others) are exercises in futility that need to happen to flush out the last vestiges of utter stupidity that remain in anti-gun legal theory.

The states that have no RKBA provisions in their state constitutions are where these cases arise and the case law that the gutless Circuits are reviewing can be rationalized to support a holding in opposition to Heller. No big deal . . . Just like the 7th Circuit's decision in McDonald was the legally correct one for the underlying law in that Circuit and Illinois law, once the issue reached the big room in DC the correct doctrine was applied for the nation.

Sorry, there is no going back to 1994, especially with the judicial appointments that Trump has made and will continue to make.

And just a reminder, SCOTUS denied Cert in Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove . . . did that mean handgun bans were "approved" by SCOTUS?

 

[Abatis]

Am I being read?

 

[domer76]

By laws that have not been challenged or have been challenged and were upheld with invalid legal reasoning before Heller. In 1942 in the lower federal courts, the "collective right" interpretation was inserted in the federal court system. This was done to frustrate and negate claims of citizens of a right to arms violation. There are literally hundreds of laws that have been sustained because the 2nd only secured a "state's right" to form a militia . . . Do you understand that the legal support for those laws has been knocked away, that they stand on nothing?

I'll grant you that this perversion did work for 66 years until SCOTUS slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold in 2008. Since then challenges and appeals have slowed or gone sideways, no real advancement has happened but these corrections take time.

As SCOTUS said, Heller was not an exhaustive examination of the RKBA / 2nd Amendment but with what has been settled over the last 130+ years, certain truths are known. I'm not worrying about anything.

I'll repeat:

Ain't it the shits that it IS infringed?

 

[Abatis]

I'll repeat:

Ain't it the shits that it IS infringed?

Yes, it is "the shits" that the right to arms is infringed.

I'm glad that you acknowledge that we are discussing actual "infringements" which are illegitimate restrictions on the right.

Usually those on the anti side don't like to admit that the laws they promote and support exist without authority and are in fact, unconstitutional . . . Usually they go on and on that the laws they want are NOT infringements, so, thanks for the honesty.

Again, it is my belief that given the legal circumstances and the status of the law, chances are better than not that "infringements" will be struck down, my belief is "the shit" will eventually get shoveled into the cesspool it should be in.

That's been a significant part of what I've been talking about, so, yay for you . . . you've gotten me to repeat myself again!

 

[Craig234]

Well, we all know just how profound your ignorance is, of constitutional rights theory.

You're an idiot, and can't even speak for yourself, and because of your incivil idiocy are now ignored.

 

[Abatis]

You're an idiot,

At least I can prove your ignorance / idiocy -- that you hold positions and espouse ideas that stand in direct opposition to foundational rights theory and the clear, unambiguous holdings of the Supreme Court enforcing those principles. You are just spouting unsupported nonsense in both your political positions and your accusations against me.

and can't even speak for yourself,

What is that supposed to mean?

Hmmm, I wonder, are you faulting me for quoting original sources to support my positions and statements or are you baldly accusing me of plagiarism?

I guess we will never know.

and because of your incivil idiocy are now ignored.

Which is typical of lefties who have no argument. I state a fact, that you are ignorant and instead of confidently standing your ground and proving your scholarship and understanding you get your feelings hurt and run away.

See, that's the ultimate truth about debate; any dumbass can have strongly held beliefs, the separator between worthless bullshit and the truth is what one does when those beliefs are challenged.

If you turn and run, of what value are your beliefs?

Why should anyone respect your opinion if you yourself feel it isn't worth defending?

In the final analysis, if your positions aren't worth defending, why hold, let alone state them?

I must sincerely thank you for conceding, thanks for turning tail and running away.

I understand that you can't tell me, "you're welcome" because you are "ignoring" me . . .

It's OK, no need.

.