March 22, 2013, 09:55 PM | #26 | |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
Currently, there seems to be little hesitation to accept the presumption that currently in-vogue "regulation" is reasonable. Just because our rights have been historically abused does not mean it is acceptable. Otherwise I could still be rounded up and sold down the river. |
|
March 22, 2013, 10:07 PM | #27 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Of course, the mere suggestion of such a thing doesn't tend to go over well in PTA meetings.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
March 22, 2013, 11:57 PM | #28 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
The rules in Switzerland were discussed in the article (written by a Swiss gun owner) to which Aguila Blanca linked in post 22. Those rules include obtaining a licenses for all guns, a background check and registration. Additional rules, including specified military training, apply to keeping one's military service guns at home. The rules are more strict in Israel. I outlined those rules, based on information obtained from the website of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, in this post:
Quote:
I don't think that's where you want to go. Quote:
I'm not trying to be critical. The goal here is to help us all be more effective advocates for the RKBA. It's important to our cause to develop the habit of rigorously investigating the facts we rely on and base our arguments on verifiable and well understood facts from solid, reputable sources -- not rumor or incomplete information.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
March 23, 2013, 08:22 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2009
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 999
|
Shall not be infringed is very important. Considering that Shall in any other place in the constitution is considered holy script.
|
March 23, 2013, 08:47 AM | #30 | |||
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
Until recently, they have prevailed more often than seems reasonable in a system originally based on individual freedom. So apparently specious arguments ARE a useful stratagem. Otherwise penumbras would cease to emanate so profusely. Quote:
That does nothing to undermine the observation of the rational behavior of their individual private citizens in relation to the legal systems they use. This is where a legal education becomes an impediment. My point was that all of those swiss reservists who chose to keep their issued weapon after leaving service do not later go on to cause societal chaos. That's not a legal argument, it is a simple observation that completely undermines any public safety BS. Guns don't cause individuals to run amok. No firearms of any sort were used to bring down the twin towers - nor to defend against it. If anyone were really concerned with safety, rather than be gun grabberz they would look to ban automobiles and abortions. Instead they choose to spend energy to infringe a constitutionally protected right. Bogging down in irrelevant minutia is how 200 years of emanating penumbras has undermined public trust in the legal system. Quote:
If I were practiced and educated and licensed I might have more swiftly directed the argument back to the more relevant point that I sought to make. The Peril of Scalia lies in defining "in common use at the time". That seems to be carefully unexplored brand-new territory. In common use BY WHOM? Granny at the retirement village in Florida? [I would expect that to be the position of the Grabberz.] 2A is not about hunting squirrels at my pappy's pecan grove. And it is obvious the founders had little trust in formal government, and much more trust in the private individual - so unlike today's gun grabberz would have us beleive. "It is not that simple!" Well, yes. It is. We have rights. The grabberz want to take them via government. Kinda exactly opposite any plain understanding of original intent. And if the gun grabberz want the constitution to "live and breath" again when it serves them, then it needs to take into account that fully automatic weapons are now "in common use at the time". That is not "extreme", nor is it radical. [I have used this conversation experimentally on several friends, who were at a complete loss to making a rational counter-argument. A couple reverted immediately into name calling, which is always a sign of success. The more thoughtful went silent. An even better indicator of success. ] In reality there is little that can be done with a full auto AK or AR that cannot be done with a semi-auto variant. Full auto does excel at wasting ammo and missing the target[ in unskilled hands] - perhaps we might in reality improve public safety if full auto were legal. But reality is often anathema to a useful legal argument, so apologies for digression down the rabbit hole. Wasckilly wabbits...... |
|||
March 23, 2013, 09:58 AM | #31 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Perhaps, as gun control advocates might well point out, the Swiss experience illustrates, and proves, the importance of requiring certain training, oversight of gun owners as well as registration, licensing and universal background checks (as done by the Swiss) as a requirement for gun ownership. If Swiss gun ownership is supposed to be a model, then all attributes of their process are material.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 23, 2013, 12:01 PM | #32 | ||
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
Quote:
These foreign systems make great examples of laws that go far beyond the pale of a reasonable layman's interpretation of what is permissible under 2A. By all means go there. Our system of government is meant to be different, erring on the side of protecting freedom and liberty. The constitution was written in a way that is easily understandable by laymen. 2A was crafted from the position of trust in the individual over trust in governmental tyranny/largess/permission. If RKBA is a right, why do I need a permit? "Because the court said so". Well, yeah, but were they correct when they said so? [me: NO] I have a permit for a "privilege" of driving an automobile....but can drive on my own personal private property without it. I have a "right" to keep a firearm, but without the permit I am possibly a felon(varies by state/local code), even on my own property. Statistically, the auto is more dangerous. If I need a permit, it is no longer a right. Your premise rejects the possibility that citizens might be able to manage their own affairs locally and that current law, rather than being a travesty, is in fact an acceptable starting point for future erosion. The starting point for argument should be to make no accommodation to any people control advocates whose rationalizations historically are used to support current codified 2A infringements. The appearance is that we are always in defense against limitations to our rights, and there are petty tyrants in every jurisdiction eager to limit them. The burden should be upon those seeking to limit our rights, not upon those seeking to save them. Freedom does not come with a guarantee of 100% safety. O'course, Juris Doctors may feel differently. Thar's beaucoup money in them thar infringements and associated petty tyrant whispering. |
||
March 23, 2013, 01:06 PM | #33 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
You claim that the results in Switzerland demonstrate that possession by citizens of military weapons: But those results can only demonstrate that under the circumstances that exist in Switzerland, i. e., Swiss culture, required military training, gun licenses, background checks, registration, etc., those results occur. The results in Switzerland can not demonstrate that similar results may be expected under different circumstances. Quote:
Quote:
The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; March 23, 2013 at 01:26 PM. Reason: clarify |
|||||||
March 23, 2013, 02:43 PM | #34 | ||
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
Judges/courts are often forced by these dances in conflicting precedent into technically correct although obviously unjust decisions. Though they seldom care to correct their contortions in a clear manner, hope springs eternal. If it never happened I might still be tied to a wagon scrapping sugar cane on some hellhole plantation, being flogged for my insolence. Quote:
|
||
March 23, 2013, 02:58 PM | #35 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
And if we want to further the RKBA in the real world we need to understand how things work in the world. We need to be able to effectively function in the political system. We also need to be able to effectively function in the legal system.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
March 23, 2013, 04:45 PM | #36 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
If the right is individual self-defense, then analysis of what firearms are in common use would have to take into account the firearms chosen by individuals for self-defense. And those are overwhelmingly semi-automatic pistols with "high" capacity feeding devices, and AR-15 pattern rifles with 30-round magazines. |
|
March 23, 2013, 06:37 PM | #37 | |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Quote:
The problem I see with accepting that standard is they cannot ever be in common use if they are already illegal. Catch 22. No accommodation for future technological advances, we are legally frozen into current weapon technology. [advancement not possible? ha.] That would be a huge concession to the people control lobby. I'd rather live with the pitfalls of the "front-line-grunt" standard of "in common use". Full auto rifles are a lot less dangerous than tyranny by bureaucracy. |
|
March 23, 2013, 06:39 PM | #38 | |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Quote:
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
|
March 24, 2013, 01:23 PM | #39 | |
Member
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
|
Thanks.
Quote:
Taken along with your third excerpt in post #10, it seems like applying a common use test to only the civilian market sets up a framework for implementing a technology freeze their opinion dismisses as an argument "bordering on the frivolous". Legislation that prevents new invention from reaching the civilian market would effectively freeze us to current technology. O'course, I'll probably have assumed room temperature before that matters. Seems like an invitation for future additional mischief. |
|
April 13, 2013, 11:05 AM | #40 | ||||
Junior Member
Join Date: April 13, 2013
Posts: 10
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Before I do elaborate a bit, however, there's one more quote from this particular discussion thread that I want to quote, since I think that it makes a distinction that is worthy of always keeping in mind. Quote:
It was the title of this thread that caught my eye, last night, as I was casually browsing the Internet for first one thing and then another. The Perils of Scalia. It was a subject heading that I thought was amusing. So, I decided to check it out. My curiosity was met by Glenn E. Meyer's concerns. Glenn was wondering aloud about whether the Heller decision by the United States Supreme Court was what he, in his own words, termed "a definitive game changer," and about whether Justice Scalia and company realize they cannot dance around what Glenn characterized as "the issue" this time. Ah. . .The perils of Scalia. My own view on it is that Justice Scalia likely chose his words carefully. He is well-versed in the art of framing a legal argument. With an eye toward something known as judicial restraint, he did not try to resolve every concern related to the right to keep and bear arms. Rather, there was a case before the Court, and he authored an opinion for the Court that addressed that particular case. Certainly, the Court's holding has ramifications that will continue to ripple into the future. But, and this is just me speaking with my opinion of one, I think that "The Pearls of Scalia" would be a more accurate way to describe Scalia's contributions in the Heller decision, or its aftermath, than "The Perils of Scalia." Scalia hand-delivered the golden egg from the goose of judicial power. It might be wise to ponder anew how best to now obtain more golden eggs from this very same goose. If the desire is to frame legal arguments more narrowly, and to figure out how to build a better Second Amendment mousetrap by weaving a more precise pattern with legal nuance, then what better place to start than with the word "shall" that appears in the wording of the Second Amendment. In legal parlance, shall is what is known as a "word of command." If you juxtapose shall as a word of command with shall as discretionary in nature, the question begs to be asked, if the word shall is not indicative of a word of command, then what word is? Laws are comprised of words. A fight over what a law means, then, ultimately boils down to a fight over words - and what they mean, but not just and only what they mean. How they apply, for instance. In which instances do they apply, or in which instances does a certain word apply. Also, the extent to which they apply, and the limits to which they extend. All this without even getting into the realm of legal principles, that also apply. Framing shall as being indicative of a word of command is all fine and dandy, but while persuasive as a standalone item, it does not, of itself, comprise the whole cloth on larger issues. There is, after all, more to the Second Amendment than just the words "shall not." The right to keep and bear arms, whatever else may be said about it, is either a right that is absolute in nature, or it is not. If you frame your legal arguments in support of, or based upon, the proposition that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right (or plural absolute rights, as in two of them - two absolute rights, if you prefer to distinguish the right to keep arms from the right to bear arms), then you will, I believe, run the peril (to borrow from Glenn) of doing the legal equivalent of what's known as "flailing against the wind." If the world gives you lemons, then make lemonade, the old adage goes. The "wind" to which I refer, above, is the judicial power. Attempting to frame the right to keep and bear arms as an absolute right is akin, not to climbing Mount Everest, but rather, to climbing Mons Olympus. Rights as absolute in nature share something in common with government powers as being plenary in nature - they both prove to be problematic for something called "the concept of ordered liberty upon which our constitutional system was founded." Not so much problematic for us, as individuals engaged in casual and informal discussions of such matters. Rather, problematic for the judicial power guided by judicial restraint, when it seeks to adjudicate complex issues put before it - complex issues with competing principles than animate each, respectively, and which clash with one another within the sphere of the judicial power. At least, that's a quick attempt at characterizing it off-the-cuff. From my perspective, it's not just a matter of which individual lines of argument that you want to advance before the Court. The order in which you attempt to argue each of them can, I believe, have bearing upon how your entire presentation fairs. That which you cede, you do not have to persuade the Court on. That may strike some as a rather counter-productive or counter-intuitive way to advance one's cause, but before you toss the baby out with the bathwater, one might be well served to more fully grasp how the art of ceding can be utilized to one's advantage. In a sword fight, it can be akin to something known as parrying. It can also be a path to crafting one's core argument in a more efficient manner, thereby yielding greater impact on narrow questions. The independent judiciary has a natural predisposition to ruling narrowly. Judicial restraint is the judiciary's bread and butter. So, why exhaust one's self trying to feed the judiciary the legal equivalent of sand, when you already know what it likes to eat? Rather than eat sand, what the judiciary is far more likely to do is to eat you alive - by rejecting legal arguments that are sloppy or which seek to accomplish something contrary to the concept of ordered liberty. When you do cede in a line of argument, it is important to understand what it is that you are ceding, and where you do cede, you want to make certain that you cede narrowly, rather than broadly, and you want to do so in conjunction with a broader purpose. To advance the right to keep and bear arms as an absolute right before the United States Supreme Court over two hundred years after the Constitution became supreme law of the land is a sizable challenge, to say the least. To cede that the right to keep and bear arms is not an absolute right is not the same thing as ceding that it is not a right that is fundamental in nature, or that it is not a right that is very broad in nature. The Second Amendment has a lot of landscape, from a verbal or word perspective. If you want to seize the equivalent of the judicial high ground, it is not likely to be found in the swamps and morass of absolutism. If you frame your lines of reasoning with shall being indicative of a word of command, while saddling it with the notion that the right to keep and bear arms is a right that is absolute in nature, you damage the first part of your argument more than you strengthen the second part of your argument. In any nation, a body of law on a given subject is something that transpires with the passage of time. It is said that patience is a virtue. It is understandable that what the Heller and McDonald cases did not say give many a case of apprehension. But, that is one of the prices to be paid for judicial restraint. Make no mistake about it - Heller was a seminal event. It was the origin of a legal tsunami. Its effect and impact will become only greater with the passage of time. While it may not be equivalent to a total solution, no case would be. Scalia was no fool. He knew exactly what he was saying in the opinion that he authored. He knew what he was saying, and he knew how to say it, to achieve maximum possible effect. He made no effort to try and resolve all outstanding questions pertaining to the right to keep and bear arms. That would be both premature and over-reaching, from a judicial perspective. Justice Scalia knows full well how to kill the legal equivalent of a vampire. But a single stake through the heart would be a quick and tidy way to slay the beast, of course. Yet, that's just not the way that things are properly done. Even if life were truly that simple, then you're still going to need more than one stake (one case), if for no other reason than because there's more than one vampire to kill. Scalia also knows that there's more than one way to slay a vampire, just as there's more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Heller wasn't the end of gun control vampirism. Scalia did demonstrate, however, that it is more than possible to slay this kind of legal vermin. If you want to kill all of the vampires (gun control laws), then they have to be hunted down, one by one. Scalia only kills them, if you bring them to him. My apologies for the intrusion, and I hope that you will all continue on with your discussion. Take care. Last edited by Charles Mosteller; April 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM. Reason: To correct typos. |
||||
April 13, 2013, 11:11 AM | #41 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,819
|
Welcome to TFL, Charles Mosteller!
That's quite a first post you've put together there, and I'll have to read it in more depth when I get back from the groc store. As for the quote button, you have to hit "Post Reply," and look above the box that you type in. It's not out there on the forum page, and has nothing to do with being a new member.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
April 13, 2013, 12:18 PM | #42 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
April 13, 2013, 01:08 PM | #43 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 31, 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 2,076
|
Welcome, and thanks for that post...
I have long felt that Justice Scalia indeed knew very well what he was saying, but could never put it into words the way you have... Bring on the next Vampire, please... |
April 13, 2013, 02:07 PM | #44 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
The results count. Tell me how long it will take for the NY, CT and CO (and others in pipeline) laws are found to be unconstitutional under Heller, etc.
Otherwise strings of electrons are just that. I'm an empiricist - I'm waiting for results. I'd ask our legal eagles - what is the estimated time before the SAFE act gets to the SCOTUS - assuming they take the case? PS - since the two recent SCOTUS decisions did not discourage those state actions - can we say that they were so decisive in squelching legislative attacks on the 2nd Amend. I doubt a state would try a law to re-segregative its schools. Certainly, attacks on Roe are popping up all over and that was said to be very clear. If in close proximity to their passing, laws like those in NY, etc. overturned then I'd be wrong in my worries. Also, a change in the court might easily use the carefully crafted language of reasonble restrictions to do quite a bit of restriction. It's an empirical question to see how it plays out.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; April 13, 2013 at 02:14 PM. |
April 13, 2013, 04:53 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Glenn, I'm confused why you think the amount of time it takes for the watershed opinion of Heller versus DC to have its effect is a significant measure of its importance or efficacy. If we are successful, it will be because the wide net that was first cast is gradually drawn in until the least possible degree of infringement remains. We didn't get here overnight. What a legislature can do in a few weeks or months inevitably takes years to untangle in the courts.
The fact that the death knell for unlimited second amendment infringement is about 50 years behind the curve hasn't helped, but here we are. Kachalsky and it's ilk is only about carry outside the home. We still have to deal with assault weapons, sensitive places, scrutiny, so-called safe rosters, interstate travel and reciprocity (or equal protection, if you will), and, no doubt, a few other pithy issues that aren't coming to mind at the moment. But as each case is decided, the noose tightens; broad principles will be settled, and infringement will be more and more difficult for states so inclined. It's going to take time, possibly decades to unravel this mess. |
April 13, 2013, 05:02 PM | #46 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
|
Quote:
As more states pass more laws, the process of weeding them out and shooting them down becomes exponentially longer, more difficult, and more costly (for both sides). It would be nice (albeit not possible) if something like the NY SAFE act could have been zapped within days of passage, thereby sending a message to other states contemplating similar legislation. |
|
April 13, 2013, 05:30 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 5, 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 358
|
to: the most educated in law at FTL
from: the least educated in law.
I am color blind. I see black and white. I have known that for many years, those in high places, both in business, law and government, see gray as well. In fact, the 80/20 rule seems to apply here. I have watched for years our laws be tweaked, interpreted and seemingly inverted. I do believe the above poster when they say it may take decades to tighten the noose but while the clock ticks, they are finding ways to cut the rope. We were 1 SCOTUS vote away from a much different world in 2013. The UN treaty vote could nail the shut the platform from which they are perched. It's only a pearl of Scalia if there is time for it to grow.
__________________
L2R Last edited by L2R; April 13, 2013 at 08:08 PM. |
April 13, 2013, 07:54 PM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Decades - I rest my case on the sound of Scalia's Celestial Chorus signaling the end to gun control attempts. Where is the Angelic Smilie?
Unless there is a sea change that moves major parts of the antigun demographics or (I don't see how), the SCOTUS comes forward with a more decisive opinion that clearly states common usage isn't a double barrel and reasonable restrictions don't include ARs, mags, carry in church, etc. - we have not really won. One recalls that folks didn't want a SCOTUS case as we might have lost (5/4). Who is to say that SAFE might not be affirmed. Justices vote their politics as the best predictor. Look at Roe - that isn't over and folks hope this court will overturn. We might end up with the right across all states to have reasonable double barrel shotguns with birdshot loads. The 2nd protects the right to shoot them into the air (or through the door). We are going to see a state by state polarization but depending on the next court appointment and elections - Heller and M. may mean very little. Look, how many times did we state that you can defend yourself with shotgun and SW Model 10? That could be reasonable.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
April 13, 2013, 08:01 PM | #49 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
Quote:
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
|
April 13, 2013, 08:15 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
What does legal research indicate in similar situations on modern social issues?
Affirmative action, Roe, etc. I remember desegration was a slow road till a definitive decision. We can be overly optimistic that Scalia and company will leap forward in admitting that they were not as clear as desired to truly support the 2nd. Amend.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|