Supreme Court says Americans have right to guns
Moderator: Available
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
I recently have read a book about my home Town, Carver Massachusetts, which was settled by decendents of the Mayflower. There is a section in the book which shows just what the Militia was. Basically it was this: Every able bodied man was required to drill 2x a year and be part of the local militia. When the Constitution every town had it's own militia, and every man was required to be part of it.Bill Glasheen wrote:Good question, Van.Van Canna wrote:
"the historical narrative"
What exactly is the meaning of this
When I see that phrase in this context, I interpret it to mean that there's ample precedence in local law and subsequent Court rulings for a right to bear arms independent of the direct connection to a state militia. Again... The original second amendment is clearly ambiguous. IMO it is the product of a compromise. Consequently a ruling absent any precedence really could go either way. But with the cat out of the bag on gun ownership and the citizens' desire to retain it, there's enough on the ownership side of the scale to weigh in that favor.
When in doubt, be ambiguous and let history determine which way you really meant it all to transpire.
- Bill
Just like every man between 18 and 35 has to be registered for the draft.
Now there is a concept that would go over well today, requiring all able-bodied persons to drill 2X a year. I can see the protests now. It would generate an aspect of unity that only military service can though.benzocaine wrote: I recently have read a book about my home Town, Carver Massachusetts, which was settled by decendents of the Mayflower. There is a section in the book which shows just what the Militia was. Basically it was this: Every able bodied man was required to drill 2x a year and be part of the local militia. When the Constitution every town had it's own militia, and every man was required to be part of it.
Just like every man between 18 and 35 has to be registered for the draft.
Isn't military service still mandatory in Israel for anyone over 18, 3 years for men and 2 years for women if I recall?
Glenn
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
http://books.google.com/books?id=EaaY0R ... y#PPA36,M1
Page 36 every male required to have own muskett ect.
Page 36 every male required to have own muskett ect.
"the historical narrative" What exactly is the meaning of this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
I think it has less to do with precedent than the idea that the history of the Framers, and their other writings, can reveal what they meant with their words. Of course, there are problems with that theory--mindreading from a distance, assuming one intent of all the Framers, and the competing idea that they wrote a tool to be interpreted by future groups rather than strict rules. But you can see the appeal of arguing that they meant what they probably meant and any new restriction or interpretation ought to find expression in a new law not a creative judge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
I think it has less to do with precedent than the idea that the history of the Framers, and their other writings, can reveal what they meant with their words. Of course, there are problems with that theory--mindreading from a distance, assuming one intent of all the Framers, and the competing idea that they wrote a tool to be interpreted by future groups rather than strict rules. But you can see the appeal of arguing that they meant what they probably meant and any new restriction or interpretation ought to find expression in a new law not a creative judge.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I'm reading a very interesting book about Jefferson now, who is credited with having been a principal author of The Declaration of Independence.IJ wrote:
I think it has less to do with precedent than the idea that the history of the Framers, and their other writings, can reveal what they meant with their words. Of course, there are problems with that theory--mindreading from a distance, assuming one intent of all the Framers, and the competing idea that they wrote a tool to be interpreted by future groups rather than strict rules. But you can see the appeal of arguing that they meant what they probably meant and any new restriction or interpretation ought to find expression in a new law not a creative judge.
What I find fascinating is how an early document of Jefferson written for the Virginia legislature (Summary View) was based upon a pre-Norman England where the Saxons allegedly lived freely and harmoniously without the interference of kings and lords. Much of the "inalienable rights" thinking of Jefferson comes from this slightly exaggerated (to the point of fictitious) view of this idyllic world.
This Summary View eventually met with the great minds in Philadelphia at The Continental Congress. The great orators spoke, and Jefferson (the shy intellect) listened. And it eventually evolved into The Declaration as we know it today.
And all that eventually led to The Constitution. And the second amendment.
So... What we have here are great minds with a fuzzy view of history (in Summary View), a trumped-up document calling for war (Declaration of the Causes and Necessities for Taking Up Arms) that made the case for Operation Iraqi Freedom look like God's truth, and subsequently a Constitution that was the best compromise that representatives of the 13 colonies could come up with at the time.
I see the second amendment as being ambiguous. It is what it is. They agreed on some language, and moved on.
I see the historical narrative as not being a snapshot in time where we're looking for "original intent." Because as I see it, the original intent was somewhat fuzzy. Perhaps intentionally so to get it passed. For god sakes, they had revolutionaries and loyalists trying to bang this document out. They chose language that worked.
And life went on.
And now we look in the rear view mirror, and the compromise language seems all the more brilliant today. The UK is once again a friend. Several World Wars were fought. Tyrannies have come and gone. Friends have experimented with gun ownership (The Swiss) and a ban on handguns (The Brits and the Japanese.)
Most Americans - particularly the vocal and highly active members of the NRA - don't want a ban on handguns. Some do...
The storyline was there in front of them. It was time to fish or cut bait.
It was a 5 to 4 decision, for Christ's sake. Ponder that for a bit.
- Bill
Bill
That it was 5/4 is what scares me the most.
Heck, a good section of the Court is quite fond of referring other nations "norms" in order to decide what we in the USA "should" be doing, he has envoked the notion of "evolving standards" to rationalize his ruleings, at several points they even used the term "penumbra" to rationalize their judgements.
But here they all of a sudden like were looking at the direct, blackletter, meaning of clearly written words----and presumably due it not lining up with their personal viewpoints they started to looking at the "original intent"...a notion that they scorn/shun in almost every other case.
As one of the wags said (my paraphrase) "this is the same Court that decided that non cititzen, foreign nationials on foreign soil----captured on the field of battle, could appeal to civilian courts--the same court that ruled that applying the death penelty to child rapists is "cruel and unusual" is the same court in which nearly half of them feel that I as a law abiding, tax paying citizen should not have the right to have a gun in my house to protect myself from such people."
Unaccountable judges should not be legislating from the bench based upon their own personal set of mores.
That it was 5/4 is what scares me the most.
Heck, a good section of the Court is quite fond of referring other nations "norms" in order to decide what we in the USA "should" be doing, he has envoked the notion of "evolving standards" to rationalize his ruleings, at several points they even used the term "penumbra" to rationalize their judgements.
But here they all of a sudden like were looking at the direct, blackletter, meaning of clearly written words----and presumably due it not lining up with their personal viewpoints they started to looking at the "original intent"...a notion that they scorn/shun in almost every other case.
As one of the wags said (my paraphrase) "this is the same Court that decided that non cititzen, foreign nationials on foreign soil----captured on the field of battle, could appeal to civilian courts--the same court that ruled that applying the death penelty to child rapists is "cruel and unusual" is the same court in which nearly half of them feel that I as a law abiding, tax paying citizen should not have the right to have a gun in my house to protect myself from such people."
Unaccountable judges should not be legislating from the bench based upon their own personal set of mores.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"any new restriction or interpretation ought to find expression in a new law not a creative judge." --Excellent way to phase it.
I'm sympathetic to the ideal, however, in practice, there are problems. Legislators and voters don't always live up to the ideals in the document the Framers created, or at least, not for years.
A court, specifically a California court, granted the right to interracial marriage, and eventually others followed suit, and this led to a SCOTUS decision overturning racist laws. Legislation would have taken far longer, and in the meantime, many would have been denied their equal rights. Now few out of the KKK would argue that this was a bad decision, although, many on the SCOTUS now would tell us that it was. They'd have preferred we all wait a few decades and some people's lives get screwed up while legislators appealed to common prejudice to stay in office.
In virginia, both sex toys and same sex sex were illegal, and one really, really has to wonder what state justification there was for that. I can't think of what legitimate state purpose was accomplished in that law. But the lawmakers were afraid to overturn them because their votes can be misconstrued in 15 second TV ads. The conservative thing to do is to repeal laws that ought not have been written and try to leave people alone unless you have to interfere. But try coming across as a conservative in the next race when you have to specifically vote to legalize sex toys.
I'm sympathetic to the ideal, however, in practice, there are problems. Legislators and voters don't always live up to the ideals in the document the Framers created, or at least, not for years.
A court, specifically a California court, granted the right to interracial marriage, and eventually others followed suit, and this led to a SCOTUS decision overturning racist laws. Legislation would have taken far longer, and in the meantime, many would have been denied their equal rights. Now few out of the KKK would argue that this was a bad decision, although, many on the SCOTUS now would tell us that it was. They'd have preferred we all wait a few decades and some people's lives get screwed up while legislators appealed to common prejudice to stay in office.
In virginia, both sex toys and same sex sex were illegal, and one really, really has to wonder what state justification there was for that. I can't think of what legitimate state purpose was accomplished in that law. But the lawmakers were afraid to overturn them because their votes can be misconstrued in 15 second TV ads. The conservative thing to do is to repeal laws that ought not have been written and try to leave people alone unless you have to interfere. But try coming across as a conservative in the next race when you have to specifically vote to legalize sex toys.
--Ian
IJ
And there are equally "problems" going the other direction....and in my view, far more serious ones with unelected, unaccountable judges essentially legislating from the bench.
Legislation may indeed "take longer" but that is exactly how the Consitution set it up---to preserve the balance of powers within the branchs of goverment....so no one branch can essentially rule by fiat...which is exactly what we have here.
I'm deeply troubled by the rhetorical methods resorted to by the dissent in what is clearly worded in the Consitution.....methods deeply inconsistant with their rational for other rulings I might add.
Sure the legislature is all to often frightened to do the right thing----but being essentially unaccountable is not any better.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the guardians of the Consitution---not social engineers acting on their personal mores.
Again, peoples rights coming down to what 1 unelected, unaccountable judge essentially legislates from the bench is, IMO, a serious problem.
And you still said it very well---you did in one sentence what takes me several paragraphs...I was showing some respect for the skill in doing so---not suggesting that you were in full agreement with the sentiment expressed.
Was not trying to give the impression that you belived something you did not
And there are equally "problems" going the other direction....and in my view, far more serious ones with unelected, unaccountable judges essentially legislating from the bench.
Legislation may indeed "take longer" but that is exactly how the Consitution set it up---to preserve the balance of powers within the branchs of goverment....so no one branch can essentially rule by fiat...which is exactly what we have here.
I'm deeply troubled by the rhetorical methods resorted to by the dissent in what is clearly worded in the Consitution.....methods deeply inconsistant with their rational for other rulings I might add.
Sure the legislature is all to often frightened to do the right thing----but being essentially unaccountable is not any better.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the guardians of the Consitution---not social engineers acting on their personal mores.
Again, peoples rights coming down to what 1 unelected, unaccountable judge essentially legislates from the bench is, IMO, a serious problem.
And you still said it very well---you did in one sentence what takes me several paragraphs...I was showing some respect for the skill in doing so---not suggesting that you were in full agreement with the sentiment expressed.
Was not trying to give the impression that you belived something you did not
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"Was not trying to give the impression that you belived something you did not."
I know. But,
"Legislation may indeed "take longer" but that is exactly how the Consitution set it up---to preserve the balance of powers within the branchs of goverment....so no one branch can essentially rule by fiat...which is exactly what we have here."
It's a reach to imply that if courts "create" a new right, or limit a right, they are ruling by fiat. We often hear, "if you want a national right to abortion, just pass the law!" from Scalia, which is fine. On the other hand, you can also say, "if you want to limit the abortion right the Court found, just pass the law!" We have seen in many cases where a court finds a gay marriage right, and the legislature handles the issue with a (wrong minded, if you ask me) constitutional amendment. That tells us the courts aren't ruling the country. Of people who inherently distrust the courts and don't want any hint of interpretation from them, who don't want to hear that the Framers created a document which, contained in its principles, provided freedoms they hadn't specifically considered at the time of its writing, I ask: first, why have courts at all then, and why elevate that branch to the level of the executive and legislative in the balance of powers, and second, where is evidence of the superiority of the legislature's elected wisdom when they wrote the DC gun control law in the first place, or when the executive branch, oh, raided the Branch Davidians or split up the FLDS families and so on?
I know. But,
"Legislation may indeed "take longer" but that is exactly how the Consitution set it up---to preserve the balance of powers within the branchs of goverment....so no one branch can essentially rule by fiat...which is exactly what we have here."
It's a reach to imply that if courts "create" a new right, or limit a right, they are ruling by fiat. We often hear, "if you want a national right to abortion, just pass the law!" from Scalia, which is fine. On the other hand, you can also say, "if you want to limit the abortion right the Court found, just pass the law!" We have seen in many cases where a court finds a gay marriage right, and the legislature handles the issue with a (wrong minded, if you ask me) constitutional amendment. That tells us the courts aren't ruling the country. Of people who inherently distrust the courts and don't want any hint of interpretation from them, who don't want to hear that the Framers created a document which, contained in its principles, provided freedoms they hadn't specifically considered at the time of its writing, I ask: first, why have courts at all then, and why elevate that branch to the level of the executive and legislative in the balance of powers, and second, where is evidence of the superiority of the legislature's elected wisdom when they wrote the DC gun control law in the first place, or when the executive branch, oh, raided the Branch Davidians or split up the FLDS families and so on?
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
I think it's a far stretch to go from interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the definition of marriage.
The second amendment dilemma was a pretty clear binary issue that needed to be addressed. The Court had avoided dealing directly with it for years. But finally with the D.C. case, they chose to take it on.
Marriage really is a much more complex set of issues. I don't believe there's any amendment to the constitution that guarantees any definition of marriage as being a right for all. Our legislatures define what "it" is. They decide how many you can marry, and at what ages you can marry. They decide what rights parents have, and what rights their progeny have.
As much as I believe that abortion is now a right (with some restriction), I'm sympathetic to some who felt that Rowe vs. Wade was the work of an activist court.
As much as I support and love my gay and lesbian friends, I understand those who would prefer the marriage issues be handled - for now - in the legislatures rather than the courts. Other parameters for defining marriage have been so defined in the past. And there are other avenues for achieving the substantive (economic) benefits/rights of traditional marriage without encroaching on the definition of essentially a religion-based institution. In my opinion, "the historical narrative" is still ongoing. It isn't (yet) time for The Court to opine in any heavy-handed manner.
But with gun ownership... It really was time to fish or cut bait on the definition of the second amendment. The need for clarity was long overdue.
- Bill
The second amendment dilemma was a pretty clear binary issue that needed to be addressed. The Court had avoided dealing directly with it for years. But finally with the D.C. case, they chose to take it on.
Marriage really is a much more complex set of issues. I don't believe there's any amendment to the constitution that guarantees any definition of marriage as being a right for all. Our legislatures define what "it" is. They decide how many you can marry, and at what ages you can marry. They decide what rights parents have, and what rights their progeny have.
As much as I believe that abortion is now a right (with some restriction), I'm sympathetic to some who felt that Rowe vs. Wade was the work of an activist court.
As much as I support and love my gay and lesbian friends, I understand those who would prefer the marriage issues be handled - for now - in the legislatures rather than the courts. Other parameters for defining marriage have been so defined in the past. And there are other avenues for achieving the substantive (economic) benefits/rights of traditional marriage without encroaching on the definition of essentially a religion-based institution. In my opinion, "the historical narrative" is still ongoing. It isn't (yet) time for The Court to opine in any heavy-handed manner.
But with gun ownership... It really was time to fish or cut bait on the definition of the second amendment. The need for clarity was long overdue.
- Bill
IJ
Its a distinction without a real difference----a week ago the DC gun ban was law with consequences for people that refused to follow it (and if I may say so, consequnces for people that DID ) today its not....all because 1 guy in a black robe said so.
Great... if the judges are ruling in your favor---a bitch if they are not.
Its why we have such a seperation in the first place---presidents often want to be kings, congress always wants to run everything including powers specifically the provience of the president and the supreme court like to flex its muscles when and where they can get away with it.
Its bad, really bad, for a nation when when the balance gets out of wack.
And pointing out all the errors and mistakes made by goverment in general is kinda my point---their judgement is frequntly suspect....and the same people that make such errors are the ones doing the appointing to the bench.
I never said the "courts are ruleing the country" I simple believe unelected and unaccountable judges should not be essentially legislating from the bench---they are and its IMO a bad thing.
And I distrust government in general.
I could just as easily ask you why you so disturst your fellow citizens instead of a political appointee like a judge?
Its a distinction without a real difference----a week ago the DC gun ban was law with consequences for people that refused to follow it (and if I may say so, consequnces for people that DID
) today its not....all because 1 guy in a black robe said so.Great... if the judges are ruling in your favor---a bitch if they are not.
Its why we have such a seperation in the first place---presidents often want to be kings, congress always wants to run everything including powers specifically the provience of the president and the supreme court like to flex its muscles when and where they can get away with it.
Its bad, really bad, for a nation when when the balance gets out of wack.
And pointing out all the errors and mistakes made by goverment in general is kinda my point---their judgement
is frequntly suspect....and the same people that make such errors are the ones doing the appointing to the bench.I never said the "courts are ruleing the country" I simple believe unelected and unaccountable judges should not be essentially legislating from the bench---they are and its IMO a bad thing.
And I distrust government in general.
I could just as easily ask you why you so disturst your fellow citizens instead of a political appointee like a judge?
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
A person is smart. People are stupid. See Congress, for example. Or the crowd at the latest Euro game. Or New Kids on the Block fans. Get enough congressmen together, and I'm sure you'll find a group of them willing to admit to being NKOTB fans. And so we come full circle.I could just as easily ask you why you so disturst your fellow citizens instead of a political appointee like a judge?
