ACLU’s latest statement on The Right To Bear Arms, (6/26/2008)

[jody]

The Right To Bear Arms

The Second Amendment has not been the subject of much Supreme Court discussion through the years. To the extent it has been discussed, the Court has described the Second Amendment as designed to protect the ability of the states to preserve their own sovereignty against a new and potentially overreaching national government. Based on that understanding, the Court has historically construed the Second Amendment as a collective right connected to the concept of a "well-regulated militia" rather than an individual right to possess guns for private purposes.

In Heller, the Court reinterpreted the Second Amendment as a source of individual rights. Washington D.C.'s gun control law, which bans the private possession of handguns and was widely considered the most restrictive such law in the country, became a victim of that reinterpretation.

The Court was careful to note that the right to bear arms is not absolute and can be subject to reasonable regulation. Yet, by concluding that D.C.'s gun control law was unreasonable and thus invalid, the Court placed a constitutional limit on gun control legislation that had not existed prior to its decision in Heller. It is too early to know how much of a constitutional straitjacket the new rule will create.

Fact: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has always been a civil right protected by the Constitution along with other enumerated rights and now that has been confirmed by SCOTUS.

ACLU will eventually have to admit that fact even though it may not defend those for whom the specific civil right to keep and bear arms is infringed upon by government.

[bluestateguy]

1. I will not join the ACLU due to their ambivalence about gun rights

They just seem to turn a deaf ear when government tries to undermine the 2nd Amendment.

That and defending the Nazis in Skokie and the Westboro Baptist "Church".

[Clovis Sangrail]

3. so... the people you dislike don't have civil rights? /nt

[tburnsten]

51. Only when they are distributing manuals

on how to seek out and coerce children into sexual relations and how to keep them quiet after, like NAMBLA was up to when the ACLU defended them. Manuals and primers on how to get away with child rape is not and never will be protected speech, and the leadership of NAMBLA should be fired into orbit with no life support system.

[Malidictus Maximus]

46. I strongly support them

And feel that both the first and second should be much LESS encumbered.

But if I think that the ACLU would be silly to try to do what the NRA is already doing fairly well. I belong to and support both. Freedom to speak should ONLY be limited by the actual physical certainty of harming others, not some hypothetical 'fire' in a crowded theater (check for yourself), or mere titillating visual images, but things like exposure of nuclear sub codes, etc.

Better a hundred Nazi Rallies and Westboro 'churches' than one book removed from a library or speech censored.

[Clovis Sangrail]

2. subject to interpretation

it's not cut and dry and the latest ruling recognized that your right to keep and bare arms isn't absolute.

You're pissing up a rope going after the ACLU on this.

[jody]

4. I've been an ACLU member for decades and I have and will continue to press ACLU to distance itself

from its gun-grabber image.

You seem to be saying that RKBA is not a civil right.

Have you read the Heller opinion at http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Have a nice evening, :hi:

[Clovis Sangrail]

7. you're wrong

I'm NOT saying that, I'm pointing out what the courts have been saying for years
RKBA isn't an absolute right
If you think it is, then take your rifle with you into the terminal next time you pick somebody up at the airport.
Or try to legally purchase a Stinger and bring it home.
There are restrictions on what you may have and where you can have it; this decision recognized that.

Nice attempt at attributing an opinion to me though.
Is everybody who veers from the 'absolute RKBA path' a 'gun grabber' with a certain set of opinions?

And yes, I have read the opinion.

good to hear you support the ACLU though.
:toast:

[jody]

8. "you're wrong" about what? The issue in Heller was whether the 2nd protected an individual or

collective right.

SCOTUS said it protected an individual right and repeated what has been a fact since the passage of the National Firearms Act (NFA), June 26, 1934 that:

2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

SCOTUS also said:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

[Clovis Sangrail]

10. what you were wrong about

You said:

You seem to be saying that RKBA is not a civil right.

The first line of my post followed up on the title and, I thouhgt, pretty clearly showed what I was talking about.

I'm NOT saying that, I'm pointing out what the courts have been saying for years

Regarding your last message, your first quote reinforces what I said about RKBA not being absolute.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

The second qoute... I can't wait until somebody tries to purchase a stinger and then use this as a defense.
Do you think everybody should be allowed to purchase anything that constitutes bearable arms?
Shoulder launched missiles are bearable arms right?

[jody]

11. Your talk about "Shoulder launched missiles" is ludicrous. Have you read

18 USC CHAPTER 44—FIREARMS and 26 USC CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS?

[iverglas]

13. why don't you tell us what it says, jody?

Does it say that people may not own some sort of bearable arm?

Then it must be a violation of that 2nd amendment thang.


I never cease to be amazed at the circular "logic" some here are so fond of.

[Clovis Sangrail]

14. and *why is it ludicrous? /nt

[jody]

16. Because you are not familiar with federal law and that lack of knowledge is laughable when you try

to discuss RKBA.

Do you have a substantive comment about the OP re ACLU's statement or my statement that RKBA is a civil right?

[Clovis Sangrail]

20. ROFL

If you can't articulate why you think something is 'ludicrous' you shouldn't make the charge.
(it kinda makes you look silly)

you're the one spouting off and you backed yourself into a corner.
I've pointed out that there is no absolute RKBA - there are restrictions on what arms you can bare and where you can bare them.

The second is very short.. so any restrictions not explicitly stated in it mean it's been interpreted.
Those few words aren't absoulute ... RKBA is parceled out based on what judges consider reasonable.

Like I said before, if you don't believe me take a rifle into a terminal at the airport.
I expect you'll get a quick lesson in how it's not an absolute right.

[jody]

21. I say again, "Do you have a substantive comment about the OP re ACLU's statement or my statement

that RKBA is a civil right?"

I conclude no, so have a nice evening and good bye. :hi:

[Clovis Sangrail]

24. I made my comments, it seems however you're a tad too thick to realize it /nt

[Tejas]

42. speaking of thick

Nobody is arguing that individual rights should include Stingers, it's simply an argument that RKBA is individual not collective. Still, some will keep trying to interject rhetoric about Stingers and atomic bombs, though they have nothing to do with this topic.

That said, the ACLU is still way off the target.

[Clovis Sangrail]

49. If you're talking about a right

and if/how that right is limited by judicial action then discussion of other ways it has been limited is very germane to the discussion

If you've read what I've typed and not what you think I mean you'll see I was taking aim at people who believe that RKBA is absolute. I fully realize not everybody is that simplistic, but the reactions from people to statements such as mine often reveal who is.

It's OK though... cling away ;)

[Tejas]

50. quit clinging to "absolute" as a buzzword

Myself, I don't see anyone here using that term except you in making accusations of others. Otherwise, we're on the same page.

Now, let's get past the rhetoric and move forward.

[RaleighNCDUer]

5. Sorry -

Opinion: The Right to Keep and Bear Arms has always been a civil right protected by the Constitution along with other enumerated rights and now that has been confirmed by SCOTUS.

If it was truly a FACT, then this ruling would never have been necessary.

FACT: This is the FIRST ruling to make that claim, in 230 years. It is an outlier ruling not supported by precedent. It will be overturned by a later court.

FACT: If you want a personal right to keep and bear arms in the constitution, you need to amend the 2nd amendment to specifically say so.

[TPaine7]

6. Positions you are taking here are demonstrably false.

Eminent scholars who hate guns and want the Second Amendment repealed realize that it protects a personal individual right. If you strip the oldest Supreme Court cases of their racism a personal, individual, nationwide right to keep and carry personal arms for any lawful purpose is what you get.

I have demonstrated that elsewhere. I know you haven't had a chance to digest what I said yet, but you should at least try before dogmatically repeating.

A strong hint that you are not thinking correctly is this:

"FACT: . . .It will be overturned by a later court."

This may be true (and may not), but it is not knowable. By asserting it as a fact, you show irrationality.

[jody]

9. Please read the source material below that proves government recognizes RKBA is a civil right.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title8/1mcvr.htm
8-1.100 Statutes and Executive Orders Administered by the Civil Rights Division
The following is a list of federal statutes and executive orders administered by the Civil Rights Division.

A. CIVIL STATUTES. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1691e(h), 3151(c); 18 U.S.C. § 248; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681(a), 1706, 1709; 28 U.S.C. § 1862; 29 U.S.C. §§ 794, 1577(c); 31 U.S.C. §§ 6720, 6721(d); 42 U.S.C. §§ 300w-7(c), 300x-7(c), 300y-9(c), 708(c), 1971, 1973 to 1973ff-4, 1997, 2000a-3(a), 2000a-5(a), 2000b(a), 2000c-6(a), 2000d, 2000e-5(f), 2000e-6(a), 2000h-2, 3613, 3789d(c)(3), 3789d(c)(4)(C), 5309(c), 8625(c), 9906(c), 14141; 3789d(c); 49 U.S.C. §§ 306(e), 1615(a)(4).

B. CRIMINAL STATUTES. 18 U.S.C. §§ 241 to 248, 594, 841 to 848, 875, 876, 924, 1001, 1503, 1504, 1508 to 1513, 1581 to 1594, 1621 to 1623, 2191 to 2196; 42 U.S.C. §§ 300a-8, 1973i(a)-(e), 1973j(a)-(c), 1973aa-3, 1973bb(b), 1973dd-3(b)-(c), 1974, 1974a, 2000e-8, 2000e-10, 3631; 46 U.S.C. §§ 658, 701.

The Civil Rights Division shares enforcement responsibility under some of these statutes with the Criminal Division, generally depending upon whether the matter involves discrimination or intimidation on account of race, or, in the case of those statutes dealing with obstruction of justice, relates to civil rights litigation. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 0.50 and 0.55. The Civil Rights Division has responsibility under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 with respect to false official statements made in connection with alleged violations of federal civil rights statutes.

ON EDIT, highlight 18 USC 924 that covers federal firearms laws.

[bossy22]

12. hmmm

"FACT: This is the FIRST ruling to make that claim, in 230 years. It is an outlier ruling not supported by precedent. It will be overturned by a later court."

Twisted facts that is- many of the decisions which you claim are precedents are lower court precedents citing miller- which was never intended to decide the collective vs individual right theory

Fact: this decision will most likely never be overturned- the personal right view of the second amendment has gained alot of traction in the last 30 years- with many prominant liberal scholars suggesting that there is a personal garuntee.

[Clovis Sangrail]

15. debatable

US v. Miller that is
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x177764

[jody]

18. You might wish to debate US v. Miller but SCOTUS has made a decision that is the law of the land.

[bossy22]

22. no need to prounce

i dont think the poster was questioning if the amendent was binding or not

[Clovis Sangrail]

23. Actually I have no desire to debate US v. Miller /nt

[bossy22]

19. that poster selectively used miller

if you truly are interested in having a thoughtful debate id suggest you read miller and read the history behind that case- whats interesting is that miller overturned a lower courts ruling that said the 2A protected a sawed off shotgun and claimed that the second amendment was a private right- when the court handed down its decision in miller- it never overturned the private right ruling- only the ruling that the 2A did not protect a sawed off shotgun

also keep in mind that Miller was a one sided argument- the federal government lawyers showed up, but Miller's lawyers didnt- they didnt even file any briefs

a key statement in the miller ruling was "In absence of any evidence to the contrary..." You could reasonably say that if miller's lawyers had shown up, that evidence to the contrary may have made swung the court the other way

[Clovis Sangrail]

27. I have read a bit on the Miller case

and the decision handed down.

What I was saying was debatable was McReynold's intent.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

seems to indicate a definite opinion on the 2nd as related to militias rather than individuals.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

seems to show the opposite.

Hence... debatable.
:toast:

[bossy22]

28. true

your point is valid

i think honestly miller was a badly thought out decision which was murky- and for one of the reasons which you have stated. I also believe that they came to their conclusion about its relationship to a militia or the need for one could have been different if briefs in support of miller were filed

[bossy22]

37. also on the miller case

when i read it i found it extremely short (less then 3 pages) and lacking alot of substatiative evidence. I think justice kennedy got it right when he said that the miller decision was "quite defficient in its capcity to settle this debate"

[Tejas]

44. Miller will be revisited

Maybe something as simple as suing for a refund on an NFA tax stamp.

[bossy22]

17. lastly

the reason this decision will certainly not be overturned in its assertion of an individual right is that there is no room to wiggle around it. Unlike miller, which leans towards a view but never really goes into detail, heller declares the "second amendment is an individual right". For the sake of court integrity a future court will not overturn a decision which is so blatantly assertive and can be considered reasonable in current times. By overturning this decision- you basically end the idea of constitutional precedents- since this decision is so strong in its assertion of an individual right- there is no room to wiggle a collective rights arguement out of this.

and there was no precedent before heller- there may have been precedents that were set by lower courts- but the supreme court doesnt have to abide by those precedents- not in one decision did the supreme court state that the second amendment was a collective rights- it may have seemed that they leant towards it- but still a reasonable arguement could be made for a individual rights view even in miller.

last thing- its a bad idea to keep referring to Dred Scott as an example how this decision will be overturned- you'd be hard pressed to find 1% of the united states population that would find that ruling reasonable- though you would find the majority of americans find the Heller decision reasonable

It is not an unreasonable decision- to say that you have a right to have a handgun in your home for self defense- but the general right to bear arms is not absolute

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. Re: Scott,

you do know that at the time it was handed down the vast majority in the country supported the Dred Scott decision.

I predict that within 20 years this ruling will also be overturned as overreaching by an activist conservative court.

The 2nd amendment simply does not say what they want it to say - to make it say there is a personal right to keep and bear arms will require amending the 2nd amendment.

[bossy22]

26. doubt it

for the last 10 years support for stricter gun laws has decreased and support for an individual rights view of the second amendment has stayed about the same with regards to the general american public. The scholarly population though has come to increasingly embrace this view of the amendment- not saying that all of them do, but atleast a good amount do

"The 2nd amendment simply does not say what they want it to say - to make it say there is a personal right to keep and bear arms will require amending the 2nd amendment."
alright fine- can you show me evidence to support this claim- i can show you an entire decision full of evidence to support my side- and then some

[Clovis Sangrail]

29. but what has driven opinion in the last 10 years?

Not scholarly opinion, but that of the 'general american public'.

The last 7 have been marked by economic turmoil, war, and fear mongering... how much has that driven opinion on the 2nd and how valid/invalid does it make that opinion?
I honestly don't know where you would look for that correlation but I'd be surprised if there wasn't one.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see that opinion change if some of those other things change... which I assume they will, at least in some way, should we avoid McCain.

[bossy22]

31. there is a reasonable arguement to be made it came

from scholars like Dershowitz, Volokh, Chemerinsky...though they were all for a limited reading of the second amendment protections (Except volokh)- but neverless an individual right

this above statement though only refers to the belief of an individual right. The lower statements refer to the gun control consensus

I do not know why support for gun control has decreased- your reasoning may be correct- who knows? I believe it had to do with the end of the crack cocaine epidemic and some "once held believed facts" being overturned

I think the "fact" that more guns creates more violance which was so prevelant in the 1970's and 1980
's started to be questioned. This does not mean that ultimatly this statement may be true but that people started to realize there was more at play than just access to guns. I believe this came with the liberalization of many gun laws such as laws prohibiting concealed carry- and the subsequant non-existant increase in gun violence.

[Clovis Sangrail]

32. Dershowitz is a putz

he lost whatever credibility he had when he suggested making a legal framework for torture.

[bossy22]

33. i agree with alot of what dershowitz says

but that does not mean i agree with everything he says

i disagree with his belief on torture he does make a reasonable arguement for it- and a reasonable way to impliment it- still i disagree with it

[Clovis Sangrail]

35. fair enough.. but I don't think he can be consdired scholarly

I don't need to agree with everything somebody says for me to have that opinion of them, but there are certain things they can do that will, essentially, drive my opinion of them off the cliff.
Assuming valid constitutional interpretation or guidance from somebody suggesting an end run around the constitution makes little sense.
:shrug:

[bossy22]

36. i disagree

i think though i might disagree with him, his constitutional reasoning behind allowing torture in certain cases is a logical arguement. It has been long held that the government can temporarly suspend fundamental rights in certain cases of clear and present danger. IT is silly to believe that a situation in which a suspect had information regarding a nuclear weapon that was about to explode in NYC- and if that information could be used to save lives- that this situation would not be considered a clear and present danger.

I believe there is no constitutional prohibition to using torture in these extreme cases

that being said im personally opposed to torture but i can't use the constitution to justify my personal beliefs in this case. The constitution protects against routine use of torture- not extreme cases. An analagous example is under the 4th amendment police officers are not supposed to enter our homes unless invited in or in possession of a warrant. With that being understood, it is also understood that if a police officer believes that a life is in clear and present danger, that they can enter the private property without a warrent in order to save that life or prevent great bodily harm

it is held through common law tradition that there is always an exception to every law- though it depends on a case to case basis

in this light, you can make a compelling arguement that what Dershowitz says is reasonable and logical when it comes to interpretation of the constitution

though it is my personal belief that if this was to be implimented- that it should be implimented with the higest degree of scrutiny

[Clovis Sangrail]

39. this is veering pretty far off topic

but I'm curious what constitutional 'logic' you think he uses to circumvent the 8th.
Like the 2nd it's very short.
Unlike the 2nd there isn't nearly the wiggle room on grammatical structure and the intent is pretty clear.

It isn't really debatable that torture isn't 'cruel'... torture just isn't torture without the 'cruel' aspect.
'unusual' is going to be somewhat more flexible based on current societal norms but I can't think of any way that shoving surgical needles under somebody's fingernails, as Dershowitz suggested, could be considered 'usual'.

Scalia tried to pawn this one off before with the logic that if they're not under arrest, or being charged with a crime it's not punishment. The problem with that is 2 fold.
1) punishment, by definition, doesn't require being charged with anything. It's simply the act of applying negative consequences in response to an action or lack thereof... like not answering questions.
2) if you accept this then the govt can torture anybody they want as long as they don't charge them with a crime.

:shrug:
I didn't buy Dershowitz's book and have no plans to.

I don't agree with it, but I think the Bush administration's strategy of re-defining the term 'torture' made more sense.

[bossy22]

41. my logic is very simple

like i said about the 4th amendment, which protects us from warrantless seizures, a police officer can still bust down your door (without a warrant) is he believes that a life is in clear and present danger.

This kind of exception would probably hold true for the 8th.

Again i will repeat i do not agree with the use of torture i just don't see the constitution protection against it in EVERY SINGLE CASE.

[Clovis Sangrail]

47. disagree with the logic

The 2nd is an affirmation of a positive right.
As such, and because of the language used, what is covered by that right is subject to interpretation.

The 4th, though it might not seem that way, is also an affirmation of a positive right.
Although it is more clear than the 2nd it is still subject to interpretation, specifically as to what is 'reasonable'.
It seems this is the loophole through which violating that right would fall in a life or death emergency.

The 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.

The 8th is not a positive affirmation of our rights as much as it is a clear prohibition against particular behavior by the government. (though as we are the beneficiaries it's a 'right')
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

There isn't a lot of room for interpretation there. By it's language the 4th makes allowance for exigent circumstances which may mitigate it's application. I don't see any such language in the 8th.
In fact, it seems to pretty narrowly define what is prohibited.

It's true that 'cruel' and 'unusual' are subjective terms (I think intentionally), but no current interpretation of either would fail to include shoving needles under fingernails as a punishment for not talking.

It seems the only loophole to circumvent this would be that the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment only applies to citizens (which I don't agree with but seems a more logical tact)
Maybe Dershowitz used some other argument that I'm not aware of.
:shrug:

Question:
The prohibition is against cruel and unusual punishment.
Do you think this indicates that the prohibited punishment must meet both of those criteria or is that line referring to a prohibition against either?

[SteveM]

45. The weight of scholarly opinion: "individual right"...

Don Kates, in The Great American Gun Debate(1997), reports "Of 60-plus law review articles treating the Amendment that have appeared since 1980, only a handful defend the position ."

Those who have concluded 2A is an individual right include William Van Alstyne (former ACLU Nat'l Board member); Akhil Amar (con law Yale); Sanford Levinson (con law U. of Texas); Alan Dershowitz (ACLU Board at the time); and the poo-bah of the "militia clause", Laurence Tribe (who changed his views in 1999.)

Of note: there have been VERY few Supreme Court decisions in which the Second Amendment have played much of a role, so it is difficult to look at the emaciated condition of judicial precedent and find a "body" of work. Also, 2A scholarship was virtually non-existent -- until the beginnings of the "gun control" movement some 40 years ago. This might explain why a few gun-control arguments got such wide play (I read one by Tribe in the late 60s), and why we had to wait years for everyone to catch up (including Tribe) to the notion that 2A was always about an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

[gorfle]

38. Here's the thing:

The 2nd amendment simply does not say what they want it to say - to make it say there is a personal right to keep and bear arms will require amending the 2nd amendment.

I have long argued that even if the second amendment were to apply collectively to militias, it wouldn't matter.

First of all, the Dick Act of 1903, which federalized the state militias, in addition to creating the organized militia - the National Guard - also created the unorganized militia - all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not in the organized militia.

So first of all, even if you aren't in the National Guard, you are still in the unorganized militia, so if you are an able-bodied man age 17-45 the second amendment would apply to you under the "collective right" argument (which as of Heller has been shot down).

Second of all, we know what the intent of the founding fathers was - to create a decentralized military system with the military force in the hands of the people to counter federal military power, as an insurance against a federal tyranny. There are no collective militias today as our founding fathers intended and envisioned to be the counter to federal military power. So if you wish to remain true to their ideal, if there are no militias the capability must fall to The People.

But all of this is now immaterial. As of Heller, as a matter of law the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

I predict that within 20 years this ruling will also be overturned as overreaching by an activist conservative court.

I predict you have a long row to hoe against 80 million firearm owners and the NRA. About the only silver lining over the last 8 years is that firearm laws have become, in general, more and more liberal. Things are going in the pro-RKBA favor. You've got your work cut out for you to turn this tide.

[Tejas]

43. Some cold hard truth right there n/t

[beevul]

40. Cruikshank

"FACT: This is the FIRST ruling to make that claim, in 230 years. It is an outlier ruling not supported by precedent. It will be overturned by a later court."

A proper reading of Cruikshank shows that claim to be the false claim that it is. It will be overturned by a later court? Be careful what you wish for. Anyone that so much as suggests appointing judges that would do such a thing is liable to drown any power that the political party which they represent has. For a LONG time. And that question WILL be asked of Obama, and of his potential appointees, make no mistake about it.

"FACT: If you want a personal right to keep and bear arms in the constitution, you need to amend the 2nd amendment to specifically say so."

Again, a false claim. A personal right, is what we have now. The majority of the state constitutions spell out an individual right as well.

[Will E Orwontee]

48. NCevilDUer is profoundly incorrect.

NCevilDUer wrote:

"If it was truly a FACT, then this ruling would never have been necessary."

Heller was heard because there were diametrically opposed opinions in the Circuits. A definitive decision as to the nature of the right secured by the 2nd Amendment was needed.

NCevilDUer wrote:This is the FIRST ruling to make that claim, in 230 years. It is an outlier ruling not supported by precedent. It will be overturned by a later court.

FACT: No SCOTUS ruling can be read to endorse the "state / collective right" interpretation and thus extinguish the "individual right" interpretation . . . Cruikshank, Presser, Miller and Lewis all have strong endorsements of the "individual right" interpretation.

The endorsements of the "state / collective right" interpretation begin and end in the lower federal courts and the birth date of that perversion is late 1942.

NCevilDUer wrote:If you want a personal right to keep and bear arms in the constitution, you need to amend the 2nd amendment to specifically say so.

FACT: The Bill of Rights is not a permission slip. The citizen's right to arms existed before the Constitution was written and before the 2nd Amendment was ratified without any militia connection and was exercised freely by private citizens for all legal purposes. The individual citizen's right to arms is a PRE-EXISTING right and as SCOTUS has said, is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. Since the right is not given, granted conferred or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment "interpreting" the 2nd's words (upon which the right does not depend) into a structure or scenario to restrict the right is a position too absurd to even be contemplated.

Some SCOTUS quotes to reflect upon . . .

"The law is perfectly well settled that the first 10 amendments to the constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights, were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, . . ." -- ROBERTSON v. BALDWIN, 165 U.S. 275 (1867)


The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. This 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; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. " -- U S v. CRUIKSHANK 92 U.S. 542 (1875)


"Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted." -- BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK,
143 U.S. 517 (1892)


The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights. -- UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

[katandmoon]

30. So when the rightwing assholes on the Supreme Court vote the way YOU want, then the ACLU sucks

Got it.

[jody]

34. No you don't "Got it". The ACLU once recognized RKBA as an individual civil right but in recent

years, ACLU changed its policy to supporting gun-grabbers who wanted to change history and interpret the Second Amendment as a collective right.

I've been an ACLU member and financial supporter for decades.

I know what early state constitutions say about the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self and of state, e.g. PA and VT.

SCOTUS made the correct decision in Heller by confirming what state constitutions have always said regarding the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Note that SCOTUS has also said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody. That means self-defense is a personal problem.

If a person chooses to have or not have an abortion, that's a personal decision and if a person chooses to keep and bear arms for self-defense or not, that's a personal decision.

Have a good evening, :hi: