RDF:![[Valid RSS]](http://validator.w3.org/feed/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
Dodged A Civil War There…
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Good News, Gun Fearing Wussies12:22 PM
Heller’s in, and it looks like the Supreme Court wisely chose to not start a second Civil War (or a second Revolution, if you prefer) by applying their usual “emanations” and “penumbras” so’s to make up, out of whole cloth, new laws and prohibitions in keeping with their own liberal agenda.
Thank Heavens.
We can now take a deep breath and utter a sigh of relief, for the debate on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual or collective right is WELL AND TRULY OVER. And yes, it is, as anybody who is both of sound mind and body and intellectually honest has always known, an INDIVIDUAL right:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
The opinion then goes on to offer six points supporting the court’s decision, all of which are a series of swift kicks to the nads of gun grabbing morons, taking a bunch of their traditional “arguments” off the table as well. One notable kick is delivered when the old falsehood that “Miller supports the contention that the Second is a collective right” is put in cement socks and thrown into the sea:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
Thank G-d that retarded discussion is now off the table. There are any number of reasons why it’s blatantly obvious to anybody with any commons sense whatsoever that the Second refers to individuals and not, say, the National Guard, but the one that always struck His Imperial Majesty as the most obvious of them all was this one:
“Assuming that the ‘it only pertains to organized, uniformed military units’ argument is valid, just to humor the retards for the sake of argument, why in the name of all that’s good and beautiful would the Founders set aside a whole Amendment in the Bill of Rights to specify and secure the military’s right to keep and bear arms?”
Huh? Anybody? Bueller?
We may be out on a limb here, but we always thought that the right of the military to be armed was pretty damn self-evident.
There are still a few points in Heller that sort of make us go “hmmm…” but, all in all, we think that we got as much as we could hope for here and, in some ways, more than we had hoped for. That’s not to say that it’s “enough”, but it’s definitely a landmark decision in FAVOR of our unalienable right to be secure in our persons by defending ourselves.
Limitations to it, however, aren’t ruled un-Constitutional:
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:
The opinion goes on to list examples of permissible restrictions, such as barring the mentally ill and felons from possession, barring possession in “sensitive places” such as “schools and government buildings” and “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms.”
We see what the court is trying to say here and, by and large, we agree with it. Yes, all of you absolutists may go get the tar and feather ready now, but we really don’t have a problem with keeping people from owning nukes, tanks and aircraft carriers. You’re right that the Constitution doesn’t say that you can’t, but the thought of mentally ill felons legally walking the streets armed with miniguns and flamethrowers does give us pause.
That being said, we’re not wholly satisfied with the vagueness in defining just what kinds of weapons are deemed permissible to regulate. On page 54:
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.
Not quite sure what they mean here, but are they saying that we’re limited to owning flintlock muskets? Surely they jest. More likely they’re saying that whatever weapons that citizens would normally possess at home without a specific eye to use in military (militia) service are protected.
Still, that leaves some questions open. Obviously, there are the easy ones such as machine guns. Unless you live in a really really ugly part of town or hunt some seriously dangerous wildlife, it’s not hard to make the case that those wouldn’t be something you’d keep with an eye to self-defense and hunting.
But how about “assault rifles?”
In other good news:
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment.
Ha! Even trigger-lock requirements are out! Good.
The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster.
Put a fork in it, it’s done. More interestingly:
Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.
So the GFW bastards can pretty much take their “OK, so we’ll let you have ‘em, we’ll just make sure that you can’t use them to hurt our core constituents: Rapists, burglars and murderers” and shove it too.
There is undoubtedly more, we haven’t yet had time to read all 157 pages of it, and you readers and the rest of the staff most likely have things to say too, so have at it everybody!
Entries (RSS)
I beg to differ, this was a disaster that’s only been postponed. All four of liberals on the court read the 2nd Amendment and turned it on it’s head. Reading Stevens dissent makes one wonder if he’s either wishing for the return of Stalin or just senile. If B. Hussian Obama gets in this will be back again.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:27 PMUsing
I”m with you on this one, Light291. The fact that FOUR justices voted against it is very very unnerving.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:41 PMAnd you can bet that those activists will replaced by MORE activists. They don’t care about the Constitution. They care about their own agenda.
Using
The men in my family did a victory war dance in their underwear around the TV this morning when this was announced. Then they broke out the Budweiser…at 8 a.m.
Its important to celebrate the good news when you get it, because you get so little of it these days. :em03:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:41 PMUsing
Recall if you will, that at the time of ratification the civilians normally used the exact same weapons (rifles, swords, and pistols) as any foot soldier in the military. I will look into the decision to see if I can determine there is some kind of realization that not only did the founders want us to possess the ability of self defense against criminals, but that they also considered (and wanted the citizens to have) the ability to defend oneself against a tyrannical goverment a fundamental right. Which would lead a reasonable person to conclude that within reason (no mortars, bazooka’s and heavy machine guns) that the average citizen should have access to similar handguns & pistols as the military.
But all in all, I see this as a positive event, even if its just temporary (it’ll take a couple of years to attack this, leaving me more time to “prepare” so to speak.)
June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 PMUsing
While I’m certainly happy with the decision, there is one thing that gives me pause:
How dorked up is it that it took 30 !#$%!# years for an unconstitutional law to be struck down???
Makes me wonder how long it would take to overturn other less obtrusive unconstitutional laws…
June 26th, 2008 at 12:43 PMUsing
Scalia also reaffirmed that the right to bear arms doesn’t come from the Second Amendment, saying it was a pre-existing right. :em93:
In other news Nancy Pelosi said DC can still regulate guns.
The problem in DC is that all the kids in school are already packing concealed weapons. :em99:
June 26th, 2008 at 12:53 PMUsing
I’m very happy about the ruling. It could have gone farther, but it is good as it stands. It affirms that the right is not granted but protected. It’s a basic human right that the government cannot infringe upon.
June 26th, 2008 at 12:58 PMUsing
D.C vs Heller Update…
5-4 vote against the D.C. Gun ban and re-afirming Americans right to keep and bear arms…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:06 PMOf course the media is keying on the dissenting (read liberal) views….go figure..
“In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional righ…
Using
WOO!!HOOO!!!
Now If I can just get the County Sherrif down here in Southern Kalifornikstan to give me my damn concealed permit, all will be right with the world.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:16 PMUsing
Awesome! But it is still unsettling that four individuals, installed to the highest court in the land, refuse to interpret the Constitution plainly. Still…I’ll take any victory and be glad.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:18 PMUsing
Beg to differ there Sire, but it’s not over. We won a victory, but not the war. True it will make it harder for the Gun Grabbers to get bans passed…if not impossible, but you know those pusswads. They’ll just get sneaker about what they get passed.
Keep your eyes and ears alert folks. We’ve got to be ready for some sneaky goings on from now on. :em96:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:25 PMUsing
Yup, that’s Justice Scalia’s writing, all right. Still, thank the L-ord we’ve got this strict constructionist (he calls himself an “originalist”) on the court to write decisions like this. Your quotes make it seem as if Scalia wanted to make the precedent as bulletproof as possible (if you’ll please pardon the bad pun).
This passage pokes very large holes in the old shibboleth that today’s National Guard is a militia within the context of the Second Amendment. This was always an inherently dishonest argument, because the Guard is every bit as organized a military force as the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force. The service of hundreds of thousands of Guards in Operation Iraqi Freedom is the proof. Conversely, a militia is a loosely-organized — or unorganized — group of citizens committed to protecting their homes and towns. Volunteer fire companies are just about the only analogue in existence today.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:28 PMUsing
Here’s an image I know you’ll all cherish:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:33 PMUsing
Cr*p. OK, let’s try it this way:
June 26th, 2008 at 1:34 PMUsing
[...] Emperor Misha I reports the good news with his usual style and wit: Dodged A Civil War There… [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 PMUsing
I never said the fight, as a whole, was over, because obviously it’s not, and I do point out a few areas that haven’t still been decided in an unambiguous fashion.
All that I was saying in the paragraph that you quoted was that the debate as to whether the Second is an individual or collective right is over. Done. The decision in Heller leaves no room for argument on that one, particular point.
We absolutely agree that many battles need to be fought still, but THAT particular battle was a resounding victory for us, our nation, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers.
As to the decision as a whole, it’s not everything that I’d like it to be, but it’s certainly everything that we could reasonably hope for and, I dare say, even a bit more. A compromise had to be reached or that bastard child rapist-loving son of a bitch Kennedy would have never been on board, and then we’d have him and his leftard friends writing the opinion instead of Scalia.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 PMUsing
Never mind the fact that every national guardsman’s BDUs has a patch that says “U.S. Army/Air Force” on it, as opposed to, say, in my case, “OK Air Force”…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:35 PMUsing
Anybody who thinks or believes that we’ve won anything or set in stone our God given rights to defend ourselves with whatever weaponry comes to hand is ruefully mistaken. The justices have left wide open their purview to redefine the word INFRINGEMENT to suit their preferences. And any subsequent challenge of state statute or local ordnance which restricts our 2nd Amendment Rights will be dismissed with prejudice once the first case gets upheld. Want to bet that won’t happen? The four injustices who voted against the Constitution can’t wait to dictate to us from their bench who God really is.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:40 PMUsing
I haven’t had time to read the decision yet but the question I have is what level of scrutiny did the majority say infringements have to meet?
June 26th, 2008 at 1:42 PMUsing
They didn’t, near as I can tell at this point, they merely said, vaguely, that some restrictions were still permissible.
Which does worry me a bit, since that means that we’re going to have to fight those battles in the future.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:03 PMUsing
“If B. Hussian Obama gets in this will be back again.”
My informed guess. If the make up of the court changes we will get the same ridiculous leftist notion that stare decisis does not apply since some evolving standard of decency has rendered the ownership of weapons and self-defense out of date and unnecessary- after all don’t we all have round the clock government protection?
June 26th, 2008 at 2:03 PMUsing
From MuscleDaddy’s link in the other thread -
Yeah - “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged.”
June 26th, 2008 at 2:11 PMSounds prety limiting to me.
Using
At least this gives the victims’ parents in child rape cases a means of achieving justice and permanent deterrence, otherwise denied to us by the “Super-Legislature” Supreme Cunt (Justice Kennedy, I presume).
We should be thanking God and praying for Justice Scalia’s continued health and intellectual vitality.
On the military’s “right” to bear arms–actually, they have no such right. It is a duty they undertake, but the Constitution extends no “rights” to government; only limited powers. That makes Stupwart’s dissent all the more stupid, if not seditious. For now, I cheer and do the happy dance!
June 26th, 2008 at 2:23 PMUsing
Like most, I rejoice in the ability of the fascists to not take my guns. But as so many have stated, this is not over. I wonder though how this issue can be revisited. Why should a future Supreme Court be able to reverse the decision about the constitutionality of handgun possession when A supreme court decided the issue?
Anyway, I thought most would like to read this garbage being posted already.
Oh really you liberal See you next tuesday? Maybe it will mean that more of the dead bodies you guys rack up will be baddies and not innocents. :em58:
In other words, we are going to see how long we can procrastinate and supress constitutional rights before we really get caught being fascists. Here’s a hint. Buy a gun. Buy it NOW. By the time they get around to trying you, it will be legal again. :em72:
No restrictions fuckstick. What part of “The right to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed?” do you not understand? Fucking liberal douche. :em98:
Yeah you go ahead and sigh you piece of shit. I can’t wait to see every city across the land having to throw out draconian gun control laws.
“Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6″ :em96: :em03:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:29 PMUsing
Of course, here’s what one of my libtard asshat senators had to say:
“Today, President Bush’s radical Supreme Court justices put rigid ideology ahead of the safety of communities in New Jersey and across the country. This decision illustrates why I have strongly opposed extremist judicial nominees and will continue to do so in the future.” — Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.
Radical?!? This son of a bitch has the stones to call someone who upholds the Constitution radical?!? This bastard is up for re-election this year and is way ahead in the polls of his Republican challenger. GAH! I need a drink. Rat bastard commie.
June 26th, 2008 at 2:31 PMUsing
Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :em69: :em03: :em93: :em96: :em04:
June 26th, 2008 at 2:39 PMUsing
I think what I’m reading here is Scalia’s move to head-off both sides of:
“Handguns wouldn’t be any good for a modern militia, so there’s no need for people to have them!”
and
“Handguns wouldn’t be any good for a modern militia, so we should be allowed to own mortars, grenade launchers and miniguns!”
Ultimately, he’s saying that he’s NOT opening pandora’s box by saying that ‘ordinarly citizens’ should be able to go stock up on the kind of professional-military-grade hardware that would be necessary to “keep up” with the “modern-warfare-times”…
BisW - does it seem like I’m reading this correctly?
- MuscleDaddy
June 26th, 2008 at 2:50 PMUsing
Could someone please fix that for me?
- MD
[Yer welcome. (grin) -The Management™]
June 26th, 2008 at 2:51 PMUsing
Lautenberg Eh? Another one for the list! (it keeps getting longer every day) Radical Supreme Court Justices? yeah… I think he’s confusing the logical ones who prevailed today with the “radicals” that issued the child rape Death penalty decision yesterday.
I wont be happy until I can carry concealed in every state of the “union”
June 26th, 2008 at 3:05 PMUsing
MD,
I think that is a fair interpretation, especially keeping in mind that Scalia would not sacrifice centuries of rulings supporting the notion that individual constitutional rights can be limited or curtailed for valid health, safety, or welfare reasons that meet certain criteria. And as much as Lord Elrond may not want any limitation on the ownership of arms at all, I can support the idea that convicted felons* and the mentally infirm probably should not have the right to own a firearm.
I started reading the dissent at lunch, since this will be the well-spring for future battles. I am always amazed at Steven’s bleating about stare decisis when he feels it has been disregarded…
And if I read your quote above incorrectly, LE, I apologize. However, on its face, it does not conform to how other Constitutional rights have been curtailed or limited in the past.
* I mean REAL felons. Robbers, Murderers, Kidnappers, Rapists. The modern trend of making everything a felony these days is disingenous, and many crimes that are classified as such are not committed by people who would typically fall into the “Thug” category.
I have to go back to work now, and even after I read the whole thing, I may reserve any substantive comment for a few days.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:12 PMUsing
No, that is the equivalent of not allowing anyone to take their mouth into the club because they might shout “Fire”.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:21 PMUsing
I wrote about this over at my place. Short and sharp, it’s a start. We’ve got a solid foot-hold, and we should have won clean and clear, 9-0. This is the SUPREME court we’re talking about! The law, the 2A, is very plainly written. It is in the founding document of this nation, the very basic law of this land, the USofA! But it’s a start.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:34 PMUsing
I agree with our first two commenters, et.al. - I think this is a nice victory, but hardly the war.
The libs will be back. They’ll probably start by increasing the ‘exclusion zone’ around schools, day-care centers, playgrounds, ‘and places where children congregate’ (e.g. stores) to well over 1,000′. Check your maps - how easy is it to find ANYPLACE that’s outside 1,000′ from all those places now?
They’re not going to go “Oh, well. We barely lost this one. Time to pack it in and let the unwashed have guns and give up on our dreams of rule.” Like a host of termites gnawing at the foundations of your house, they’ll keep at it until they’ve ruined it for everyone.
And no aircraft carriers? Hey, when aircraft carriers are banned, only criminals will have aircraft carriers! I had one in the 70’s…(a 1969 Pontiac Fury III…came with a VW Beetle in the trunk as an Escape Pod…)
Orion
June 26th, 2008 at 3:42 PMUsing
Guys, I am very happy for you. All of you. Every single one. I understand the hesitation of all those who are holding back on the joy and drink because of the battles still ahead and because of the vaguaries involved in the decision. However, I am really happy that this 2nd most important personal right of every citizen has been given such great uplift and affirmation by this decision.
Cherish that right, protect it, fight tooth and nail to keep it. Otherwise we all die lonely and alone. We are way closer to that fate here on the old continent.
Just to give you a little taste of the type of treacherous and evil manipulation citizens here in Britain are subjected to on a daily basis while the totalitarian elites try to explain why not only handguns but also knives and other tools need to be banned, for the good of the people, of course:
This is a full size ad a nation-wide TV channel is running for its new series about ‘the effects of gun and knive crime on young people on our nation’s streets”. I took the picture on my way home tonight on the Tube. I’ll let everyone else make mean comments about it, I am too full of joy SCOTUS’ decision right now. And I need to get a new beer.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:45 PMUsing
Freddie Mercury Lives?!?!
(but needs to shave and apparently had to trade in his teeth as price-of-passage)
- MuscleDaddy
June 26th, 2008 at 4:03 PMUsing
Or put it off temporarily… but that was my immediate reaction, as well
Lord Elrond @24
2 to center mass, one to the noggin, repeat again until reload is required. Everytime a goblin dies the leftists lose a vote.
June 26 to November 4… Goblin Season - no limit but ya gotta clean yer own.
anonymous hourly worker @ 3
Ah, Beer, Bullets, and Bibles it sounds like….like…. FREEDOM!
June 26th, 2008 at 4:22 PMUsing
Uh, Orion? That was a PLYMOUTH Fury III.
http://www.google.co.....tnG=Search
Pontiac made the Trans Am, LeMans, Tempest, and GTO. The Fury was a piece of MOPAR delight.
I miss my RoadRunner. Until I go to the Gas Pump.
June 26th, 2008 at 4:27 PMUsing
Hey Deej! Glad to see you alive and posting! How’s your therapy going?
June 26th, 2008 at 5:32 PMUsing
Two things:
(1) Comparing the Standard Liberal positions on handguns and so-called assault rifles is instructive. The first are bad because they didn’t exist exist in the late 18th century and therefore have no relation to the sort of firearms “Militiamen” would be issued and the second are bad because they are the direct equivalent of the flintlocks carried by “Militiamen.”
In other words, your Glock is not military enough and your Bushmaster XM-15 is too military.
(2) Regarding this Militia business, apparently nobody on the Left has even heard of The Militia Act of 1792.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm
Specifically…
Clearly, unmistakably, the Militia is composed of the citizenship of the United States and is quite distinct and apart from the federal Army and Navy.
Equally clear is that Citizen-Militiamen are to supply themselves with firearms and other equipment according to a fixed standard.
Attention, Liberals:
This is what WELL REGULATED means in the context of the Militia mentioned in the 2nd Amendment and in this Act.
It means you bring your own guns and gear, but the right kind of guns and gear as opposed to any damn thing you please.
June 26th, 2008 at 6:14 PMUsing
Panzermann, we saw what the Olde Country was coming to back in 1775, that’s why we fought the Redcoats.
The Founding Fathers were wise men guided by the hand of Almighty God when they wrote the Constitution but they must be rolling in their graves right now. Four Justices looked at the 2nd Amendment and ignored what it said. That scares the living shit out me. Our freedoms hung on the vote of one man. It should have been a no brainier but it was 5-4. What happens when Obama (C-IL) ever gets in the WH? Liberals have come so far in brainwashing the people that they’re now ripe for the take over.
I’ve said it here before and I’ll repeat until my last breath…they aren’t going to take away our rights…we’re going to hand it to them. Today’s decision means they’re close to that reality.
Hitler did it in less than a decade, how long do we have before it’s too late?
June 26th, 2008 at 6:25 PMUsing
Which, Light, is exactly WHY the founding fathers put that in there. To ensure patriotic American citizens the tools to overthrow the government should it become as the one we just got rid of. Many of us out here will not go quietly into the darkness. We will NOT ACCEPT the destruction of this nation. Remember the four boxes of government, mail, soap, ballot, and ammo. And remember your oath of enlistment? REMEMBER YOUR OATH OF ENLISTMENT! If you don’t know it, google it. If you agree with it, take it. If you don’t, get the fuck out of my country. There are buses, boats, and planes leaving every day for wherever else you’d rather be. There are highways north AND south.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:02 PMUsing
I’m glad BrainFromArous put up the text of the Militia Act (I can never remember the year) as it could help clarify just what weapons should be allowed. As the Act specified, militias are organized at the company level. It therefore seems to me that weapons up to and including those used in a rifle company would be legal.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:02 PMUsing
[...] militias. The decision was 5-4 once again having Kennedy as the deciding vote. As Emperor Misha so nicely puts it: Heller’s in, and it looks like the Supreme Court wisely chose to not start a second Civil War (or [...]
June 26th, 2008 at 7:21 PMUsing
cmblake6,
You missed my point. The majority of people of this country have become so brainwashed by academia, the MSM and others that they believe what they’re told. The Germans did the same thing. They were told over and over again what was good for them and they eventually bought into it. Four Justices ignored the Constitution and the people aren’t in the street with torches and pitch forks. Why? Because the people have become obedient robots that accept what a bunch of legislators or judges say and take like words form on high. We are becoming a minority in this country. We are people who believe in the Bill of Rights, but we’re rapidly becoming people are believing that we’re a bunch of gun nuts that need to be controlled. WACO ring any bells cmblake6? Ruby Ridge? Elian Gonzalez? They government, controlled by the liberals, has chipped away at our freedoms and nobody protests. They SCOTUS issues a ruling like KELO and nothing happens.
Another thing, don’t ever fucking preach to me about my Oath. I willingly took that Oath five times in 22 year career. Three in the Corps and two in the VAANG.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:41 PMUsing
:em69: :em93: I 100 percent agree with this. I think gun ownership should be left up to the person, not the gov’t. And to deej, how are you?
June 26th, 2008 at 8:02 PMUsing
Scalia as usual is a gifted jurist and intentionally wrote this to close the gates to further questioning as others have said here. I’ll take a stab at it line-by-line, but defer if needs be one of our more qualified legal scholar types.
Modern weapons are obviously more appropriate to the militia in the 21st century. A de facto objection (or ruling) to ban ‘assault-weapons’ as previously defined, would be at odds with the 2nd amendment. The prefatory clause in this right, was to arm the citizen-militia with state-of-the-art weapons expected to be possessed by citizens of that period. In other words, the framers wouldn’t expect the militia to privately own cannons. He slams a door to challenge, by stating that an infringement or restriction on ordinary weapons, i.e. small arms AVAILABLE today would separate the intent of the 2nd to have a properly equipped militia, regardless of the change in what might be considered useful militia weapons. A citizen with a rifle can still defend regardless. A very carefully crafted point. He could see the argument that owning an AR-15 in an age of heavy armor and air-power could arise, based on lack of ‘usefulness’ compared to current weapons technology.
This sentence further supports and amplifies his opening statement. It reaffirms that whatever existed at that time was the expected ownership and possession, and the fact that modern improvements in weapons wouldn’t alter the need for a citizen-militia as it would logically follow that the citizens would also be expected to possess ’sorts’ of lawful weapons for today.
He’s making an argument using reverse logic. This is the cigar-chomping genius here, he’s saying more by NOT saying what his true intent is- It might be true that a militia might not be as effective as the 18th century militias, having closer parity in technology at the time. i.e. musket vs. musket. However by not stating it, he’s implying wordlessly “militias with whatever the citizens have “now” are NOT completely ineffective or useless. Slam another door…HARD.
BAM !!!! He’s completely closing an argument, that I can see being made. To Wit: Modern weaponry is so sophisticated and expensive (by implication) that small arms in the possession of a citizen militia is of no use and therefore subject to regulation. Stated more plainly, the original intent (the prefatory clause) and the protected right CANNOT be separated using the argument of some future “non-usefulness” for militia application. The clever bastich could just see the GFW argument coming and slammed the door on it. The opinion takes a premise and builds a fortress around it in all directions.
Simply brilliant your justice….brilliant….. :em04:
June 26th, 2008 at 8:38 PMUsing
Hoo-Ah, Brother.
- MuscleDaddy
June 26th, 2008 at 8:39 PMUsing
Thanks MuscleDaddy
June 26th, 2008 at 8:52 PMUsing
OT,
Jackboot, your email addy on the sidebar is no good. Misha’s got some mail to forward from me to you. So, if he didn’t, contact the boss. :em93:
June 26th, 2008 at 8:54 PMUsing
MD, you got one, too, in case you haven’t checked your mail lately. :em69:
June 26th, 2008 at 8:57 PMUsing
True. The Leftoids will of course try to say that weapons appropriate for self defense would be useless against tanks, planes, and the like which would mean that weapons that the Military would use against those threats would be out of bounds for the average citizen. Which of course is ludicrous. The chances of our being invaded by a modern conventional army is right along the lines of a snowball’s chance in hell and Paris Hilton suddenly growing a brain. If and when a shooting war starts on our soil it will be very similar to Bosnia and Baghdad. Urban warfare. Street fighting. Rooftop to rooftop. THAT is the type we must be prepared for and I intend to have my guns ready for exactly that. :em96:
June 26th, 2008 at 9:13 PMUsing
Skye-
Mail is incoming NOW !!!!!
:em93:
June 26th, 2008 at 9:14 PMUsing
Got it JB…many thanks.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:26 PMUsing
Look at the average military unit of “soldiers”, ground troop infantry ….. What is the dominant weapon? That is what the militias were supposed to supply, not cannoneers, not cavalry, but ground troops.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:37 PMUsing
Moop, you left out BVDs.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:00 PMUsing
the mistake in this statement is that the act of shouting fire is not against the law if there is a fire. the violation occurs if you lie. shouting fire when you know there is no fire is not protected any more than any other intentional lie, being wrong is not the same as a lie.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:48 PMUsing
Nice to hear from you D.J.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:16 PMUsing
A couple more observations about Justice Scalia’s opinion in the Heller case:
1) By recognizing that there is an implicit right to self-defense in the Second Amendment, Scalia also shot down the argument that self-defense is not a justification to own firearms. Self defense is indeed a human right…and that viewpoint is now enshrined in US constitutional law.
2) We see in the Heller decision a clear example that Scalia practices what he preaches when it comes to originalist legal theory and judicial restraint. The case boiled down to being able to 1) Heller being allowed to legally own handguns and 2) being able to keep loaded firearms in his home for self-defense, both of which were (and still are, for the moment) illegal in D.C. Every other issue dealing with gun rights - registration; concealed-carry; machine guns, SBRs and AOWs, etc - were side issues irrelavant to the case at hand. And that is how Scalia framed the arguments, such as in this already-extensively-quoted passage from the decision:
…which would seem to me to leave open, for future courts, to decide what “sophisticated” arms, if any (machine guns, for example) should be made available to citizens. Scalia also stopped short of declaring that Heller applied to the states, since that question was technically not part of the case…but did note that just as the First Amendment did apply to the states as a result of past decisions by the court (Cruikshank, perhaps?) , then so, likely, would the Second as a result of Heller. Which sounds like a shot across the bow of Chicago’s gun ban, and perhaps NYC’s Sullivan Act as currently written…
All in all, I think Scalia and the majority went as far as they could toward affirming the Second Amendment, without stepping beyond the bounds of the case. And the fact that the Supreme Court, for once, eschewed judicial activism in its ruling is almost as welcome as its (qualified) embrace of the Second Amendment. :em69:
June 26th, 2008 at 11:18 PMUsing
Light, I was not preaching at YOU about the oath, I was using that as a launching platform to yell to others. I knew YOU had it. Don’t feel that I was after you. I did my 20 from Viet Nam to Desert Storm. Anybody who’s read more than a few of my comments knows that’s something I truly believe. What I was suggesting was simply that others need to pay attention to what it says, what it means. Shit, if I’d known you were going to think that was directed at you I’d have made it a separate post! What we need to do is be ready, and help others to understand. We must overcome this brainwashing that has been foist upon the public by letting the truth be known.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:17 AMUsing
And yes these mean the same thing to me. Do not confuse me with some liberal leftard. I too am a veteran, and a patriot. I’m one of the ones who’ve been asking about the reset button. I’m in total agreement that these things listed are total bullshit that need to be erased and avenged. I do hope you understand where I was coming from.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:24 AMUsing
And MD, you’ve seen enough of my stuff to know it as well. Check my blog.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:26 AMUsing
Have I clarified sufficiently yet? Shit.
June 27th, 2008 at 12:30 AMUsing
It’s more than a stretch; it’s a rupture.
The owners of any piece of private property - club, restaurant, bookstore, etc. - can exercise their legal rights to turn away legally-armed people if they choose.
The DC law prohibited possession of handguns by you, in your own home.
June 27th, 2008 at 4:07 AMUsing
Agree or disagree, here’s my take:
The American People avoided, by the narrowest of margins, having a GOD-GIVEN right abolished and infringed by individuals sworn to protect that very right.
The Supreme Court was within ONE vote (one very unreliable vote) of DECLARING a CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED RIGHT Null and Void.
They were only prevented from Rescinding a Constitutional Right, in effect for 221 years, by one vote.
Needless to say, the Supreme Court does NOT have, has NEVER had, and was never INTENDED to have the power to do such a thing.
Nevertheless, the “Justices” of the Supreme Court have declared themselves superior to both of the other two branches of government combined, and act UNRESTRAINED as DESPOTS who MAKE and ENFORCE both LAW and POLICY for the entire United States by Judicial Fiat.
THIS WAS NOT A VICTORY.
It was merely a temporary reprieve from further oppression by this un-elected oligarchy which has usurped all ultimate power in this nation.
We now live in a Tyranny. Plain and simple. We maintain the use of our GOD-GIVEN rights for but a little while longer, at the whim of a tyrant — and only because the tyrant was in a generous mood.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:39 AMUsing
cmblake6,
Just a shout-out of support & brotherhood for Light - not an attack on you.
Doesn’t happen often, but most people find it memorable when I light-into someone - you’d know.
You can take care of yourself - seen it.
- MuscleDaddy
June 27th, 2008 at 10:12 AMUsing
This fundamental right was not assaulted all at once, it was done one “reasonable” step at a time by well-meaning nanny statists (assuming there is such a thing).
June 27th, 2008 at 12:14 PMTo fully restore this fundamental right takes something that has been sadly lacking - eternal vigilance.
First, we have the Supreme Court re-affirm that the Second is a fundamental, and indeed pre-existing, right to the INDIVIDUAL, not a collective right to the state. As previously stated, this is done, check in the box.
Now we take on the “reasonable restrictions” one at a time, just as they were enacted.
And to all that have served, thank you. I took that oath myself a time or two in a 20 year Navy career and when cmblake6 tells us to remember it, it’s not “preaching” at us, it’s a reminder - or at least that’s how I have taken it.
Using
MD, Larry, thank you brothers. Light, ALL of us who stood on the line for the nation. We must remember, we must teach, we must never drop our guard. We must never accept defeat, no matter how bad it looks.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:19 PMI’ll phrase it a bit differently this time, how’s that? To ALL of you who’ve never taken the oath. To any of you who may have forgotten. And you know the rest of my line.
Using
I wonder if anyone ever proposed this argument:
1. The 2nd Amendment cites the Militia as the reason for RKBA.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:09 PM2. “Militia” was at the time the collective term for all men of draft age.
3. Therefore the 2nd Amendment protects RKBA rights ONLY for those eligible for the Militia - meaning that women do not have such constitutional rights.
Using