The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 30, 2010, 02:51 PM   #151
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
The local tailoring argument is in part racist.
I would not call it racist, in part because I am generally favorable to the idea of real federalism and local solutions for local conditions. However, federalism shouldn't just matter sometimes, and a coherent view of federally enforced rights should not allow Breyer to pick and choose which to enforce and which to leave to local control according to his (or another justice's) preference.

Per Scalia,

Quote:
I join the Court’s opinion. Despite my misgivings about Substantive Due Process as an original matter, I have acquiesced in the Court’s incorporation of certain guarantees
in the Bill of Rights “because it is both long established
and narrowly limited.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 275 (1994) (SCALIA, J., concurring). This case does not require me to reconsider that view, since straightforward
application of settled doctrine suffices to decide it.
Extending the limitation of federal power to the states does some violence to the corpse of federalism, but we should not pretend we've witnessed a murder. The victim was gravely ill decades before any of us were born.
zukiphile is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 02:59 PM   #152
Glenn E. Meyer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
My comment about racist implications is that when I look at the motivations for playing the local control card, I see it not as a real argument for state vs federal perogatives. It is the view of the minority population needing to be controlled or protected against themselves as the attitudinal engine that wants to ban guns and then the local argument is used to bolster or enforce that opinion.

I'm always one to look for the emotional to drive the decision and then folks choose the cognitive rationale to support it.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 04:41 PM   #153
Evan Thomas
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
People's opinions are emotionally driven? Oh, surely not. I'm shocked, shocked....

And speaking of emotional reactions, it seems excessively paranoid to me to worry that because both Heller and McDonald dealt specifically with handguns as tools for self-defense, other types of guns will suddenly be more subject to bans. As Zukiphile notes, "Neither decision indicates that the right is solely for self defense."

While these decisions don't automatically rule out such attempts, I see nothing in either that would make them easier. Rather the opposite, given the standard of "common use." And defining "common use" more clearly, along with what counts as a "class" of weapon under that standard, would seem to be high on any list of goals for upcoming cases.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry.
Evan Thomas is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 06:35 PM   #154
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vanya
I see nothing in either that would make them easier. Rather the opposite, given the standard of "common use." And defining "common use" more clearly, along with what counts as a "class" of weapon under that standard, would seem to be high on any list of goals for upcoming cases.
Which brings up a sort of chicken and egg question regarding the NFA, AWB and "common use". Certain weapons are not "common use" because they are banned or banned in effect... How would that issue be addressed?
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives...
...they just don't plan not to.
-Andy Stanley
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 07:30 PM   #155
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,137
This guy nailed it on the head:

I thought I remembered this and, yep, this guy nailed it (post 399):
Quote:
Ultimately, I think the Court will incorporate the 2A on due process grounds with Thomas possibly concurring through the P&I Clause. I don't think they'll say a thing about the level of scrutiny and will parrot a lot of the language of Heller on what firearms in "common useage." The question upon which the Court granted review dealt only with incorporation, not the level of scrutiny.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/show...89#post3969889 post 399

KyJim is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 08:20 PM   #156
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
While the high court's decision dealt primarily with having a handgun in the home for defense, and not so much with arms in general (although there was some mention), isn't that because the case(s) before the court were about having a handgun?

Also, I don't see the rulings as establishing an individual right vs a collective right. What I see is the establishment of the individual right as well as the collective right.

How could we have a right to arms for personal defense, and not have the right to those same arms for collective defense (militia)?
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is online now  
Old June 30, 2010, 08:26 PM   #157
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
From the article quoted by Glenn E. Meyer:

Quote:
Derek P. Langhauser, general counsel for the Maine Community College System, agreed that most campus bans would survive court challenges because the ruling is meant primarily to safeguard the rights of individuals to protect themselves in their homes.
How can SO many allegedly intelligent people continue to spout the utter nonsense that the decision was about people protecting themselves "in the home"? Is it the air, or is it the water? What is so bloody difficult to comprehend about "bear"?

I respectfully submit that Mr. Derek P. Langhauser should never have been allowed to graduate from whatever law school he attended.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 08:32 PM   #158
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by peetzakilla
Which brings up a sort of chicken and egg question regarding the NFA, AWB and "common use". Certain weapons are not "common use" because they are banned or banned in effect... How would that issue be addressed?
Go here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNN7_TOvaUo.

Great presentation by Gura at Brown University on Law Day.
He addresses the "circularity" argument at: 1:35.29.

Good presentation of the Heller decision implications.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 09:10 PM   #159
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
How could we have a right to arms for personal defense, and not have the right to those same arms for collective defense (militia)?
That's a whole other ball of wax, especially given the exquisite job certain political factions have done to make "militia" conjure up images of bloodthirsty hillbillies waiting to blow up government buildings to topple the ZOG.

I imagine we'd have a chance to refute Presser used as a precedent. Still, I wonder what kind of case we could bring that would (re)establish the right to form militias...

Quote:
How can SO many allegedly intelligent people continue to spout the utter nonsense that the decision was about people protecting themselves "in the home"? Is it the air, or is it the water? What is so bloody difficult to comprehend about "bear"?
The part where the Court mentioned it only in passing. What it means to "bear arms" and what the contours of that right may be are issues for future cases.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 09:39 PM   #160
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
While I agree that the court did not address except in passing the bearing of arms - I do think that what they did say was highly signficant. They made it a point to specifically say that the carrying of arms could be constitutionally prohibited in government buildings, schools, and sensitive places. While this is not definitive by any means - it is highly significant in that there would be no reason to expicitly make this point if they did not in fact view the carrying or bearing of arms as a normal and a protected part of the right. It also makes sense that given the value the court placed on self-defense that the court would not truncate that right at the door to ones home.

More speculative is the courts language that the States had/have leaway to determine to some extent where, when, and how arms would be carried. I would take that to mean that States may define a preferrred method of carry and limit carry in the areas described above. Thus a State could require concealed carry over open carry or perhaps even require it in certain venues so long as the method of carry did not materially infringe the core right to self defense, which also implies a shall issue model for ccw.

This would be congruent with the courts description of the right as a fundamental right.
mack59 is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 09:44 PM   #161
mack59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 14, 2004
Posts: 447
The court did say that arms could be prohibited from schools - my assumption is that this certainly means at least elementary though H.S., whether or not this also applies to colleges - I am less certain - particularily where there is student housing on campus.
mack59 is offline  
Old June 30, 2010, 10:12 PM   #162
Musketeer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 12, 2005
Posts: 3,733
That the court even went partially down the road of "bearing" arms surprised me. Frankly I expected a simple yes or know on incorporation and batting it back to the lower courts.

Never expect any more from a SCOTUS case than the very narrow question being asked.
__________________
"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies." Thomas Jefferson

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin
Musketeer is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 07:28 AM   #163
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
Quote:
One argument that the dissenters made was that different areas had different circumstances, Chicago being different from the Wild West locales that some of us live in. Thus, Chicago might be unable to fight off a total ban on handguns but still maintain an AR ban as not being suited for apartment defense. Defense against tyranny being a different beast as tyranny is not locale specific.
The majority said that a right is applicable to the states in the same manner it is applicable to the federal government.

Quote:
Extending the limitation of federal power to the states does some violence to the corpse of federalism, but we should not pretend we've witnessed a murder. The victim was gravely ill decades before any of us were born.
Federalism was substantially gutted by the civil war and the subsequent consitutional amendments.

The intent of the 14th amendment was clearly to apply consitutional rights and protections to actions by state governments and thus change federalism. And I don't really have a problem with that because it was done through the process laid out in the consitution. While the founders couldn't foresee a time when the states would be the agents of Tyranny the congress in the years following the civil war saw it and started the process to amend the constitution.

The gutting of federalism was done largely because of the civil war but the process used was the one laid out in the consitution. The congress passed the amendment and it was ratified by a sufficient number of the states. The states essentially decided that federalism needed to change and agreed to the change as required by the consitution.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 12:46 PM   #164
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Federalism was substantially gutted by the civil war and the subsequent consitutional amendments.
Is Federalism a pale shadow of its former self? Yes, but I'd blame abuses of the commerce clause, not the 14th Amendment.

Freedom of economic experimentation is one thing. Infringing on fundamental rights, especially when these states ratified the Bill of Rights upon entry to the union, is a different thing altogether.

If Arkansas wants to suspend the income tax, or charge more than Texas, they've got that option. If Colorado wants to lower the speed limit to 35, that's their prerogative. None of those states, being parts of the union, have the authority to tell me how to worship, search my house without a warrant, or tell me that I can't arm myself.

...and let's please not use the term "state's rights." Individuals have rights; governments have powers. Those are two completely different animals.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 01:32 PM   #165
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
I imagine we'd have a chance to refute Presser used as a precedent. Still, I wonder what kind of case we could bring that would (re)establish the right to form militias...
Many (most?) of us already have the right to form militias. Most of us, in fact, ARE the (unorganized) militia. My state does not prohibit the establishment of a private militia; we only prohibit using same to overthrow the government. I know of several other states whose laws substantially mirror that position.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 01:43 PM   #166
Hugh Damright
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
Quote:
The intent of the 14th amendment was clearly to apply consitutional rights and protections to actions by state governments and thus change federalism. And I don't really have a problem with that because it was done through the process laid out in the consitution.
Reading that actually made me shudder ... the intent of the 14th is not nearly as clear as some people imagine ... I tend to see it as an antidiscriminatory amendment ... and it most certainly was not done through the amendment process ... I've read that Virginia considered the 14th Amendment and it received 0 votes in our house and 0 votes in our senate ... so the US put Virginia under military rule, reducing us to "US Military District Number One", until we voted for an amendment we did not want. That is not the amendment process, consentual government, or anything of that nature. In fact, it is the very thing that the Second Amendment is intended to prevent. There seems to be room for doubt about what the 39th Congress intended the 14th Amendment to do, and little doubt that the amendment failed the amendment process.
Hugh Damright is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 04:10 PM   #167
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Many (most?) of us already have the right to form militias. Most of us, in fact, ARE the (unorganized) militia.
I wasn't clear on that. In theory, we have the right in many places. In practice, it's not so clear.

What constitutes a militia, and what actions are protected? Where does a liberal state decide that an innocent group of armed, prepared citizens might be domestic terrorists in training? What criteria are there? Is a militia considered a distinct political/lobbying organization if its members try to encourage or discourage legislation? How many members would said militia have to have to qualify? Does it come under federal scrutiny if it has membership across state lines?

I can remember the government doing its absolute best to demonize the very word "militia" during the Waco/Ruby Ridge/Oklahoma City period, and many people still have a very bad impression. Just last year the SPLC was publishing "studies" attacking the idea of civilian militias.

Our definition of militia is quite clear. To the general public and the legal system, it is still murky.

Perhaps a case in which a local militia is harassed will provide a means to challenge Presser and establish a favorable precedent.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 08:45 PM   #168
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
...and let's please not use the term "state's rights." Individuals have rights; governments have powers. Those are two completely different animals.
I do not know how or when this particular form of linguistic purity arose, but it is not helpful in understanding the roots of federalism. Writings during the founding era often mentioned both government powers and rights, sometimes interchangeably.

Quote:
The Articles of Confederation, Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.
Quote:
James Monroe, Views of the President of the United States on the Subject of Internal Improvements

This view of the exclusive jurisdiction of the several States over the territory within their respective limits, except in cases otherwise specially provided for, is supported by the obvious intent of the several powers granted to Congress, to which a more particular attention is now due.
... the right to declare war ...
The right to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises ...
... the right to raise and support armies ...

To the other powers of the General Government the same remarks are applicable and with greater force.
The right to regulate commerce with foreign powers ...
The right to borrow and coin money ...
... the right to punish piracy ...
The right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization ...
The right to promote the progress of useful arts and sciences ...
The right to constitute courts inferior to the Supreme Court ...
The right to establish post-offices and post-roads ...
gc70 is offline  
Old July 1, 2010, 10:00 PM   #169
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Many (most?) of us already have the right to form militias.
The States have a right to form militias. Individuals have no constitutional right to form a militia. Your state may not prohibit one but many do and that prohibition would withstand any constitutional challenge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca
Most of us, in fact, ARE the (unorganized) militia.
males 18 to 45 with no rights, duties or responsibilities that we can assert against.

Tom, the militias you speak of are unauthorized paramilitary organizations. they are not protected by the Second Amendment.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 07:58 AM   #170
zukiphile
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
Quote:
Individuals have no constitutional right to form a militia. Your state may not prohibit one but many do and that prohibition would withstand any constitutional challenge.
I am aware of no state that prohibits private militias. Some states prohibit parade of or public funding of private militias.

The first amendment should be sufficient to protect the right to form private associations.
zukiphile is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 08:47 AM   #171
Al Norris
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
Quick! Somebody trot out the ruling in Presser!

Folks, the McDonald decision had nothing to do with the militia clause of the 2A. So let's not go there.
Al Norris is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 01:43 PM   #172
godot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2004
Posts: 105
Meanwhile in Chicago

City Council has just passed the new handgun law.
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...tions-450.html
Far from perfect but miles ahead of the previous law.
godot is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 02:17 PM   #173
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
What is the Fundamental Right?

I believe in Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 5-4 that the Second Amendment in the US Constitution protected a FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL right. In McDonald, the USSC ruled by 5-4 that the 2nd A. also applies to the states and local governments. There are all kinds of open questions up in the air because of this.

However, many people say that all that they've done is to protect keeping a gun IN THE HOME for self defense. I'm not sure that is the case.

The "right" in question, and which is protected by the 2nd A. is the "right to keep AND bear arms". Notice the right involves both of those actions and is a singular right, not a plural one. It's not the right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. It's not the right to keep OR bear arms. It's not the right to keep arms or bear arms. It's the right "TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS". So, if the 2nd A. protects the fundamental, individual, right "to keep AND bear arms", how are they going to wiggle into saying this only permits someone to keep a gun in the home for self defense. It would seem that the new Chicago law, saying you cannot have a gun on the porch, in the yard, or in the garage, already runs afoul of the rulings in Heller and McDonald.

It's one right which encompasses two distinct yet related actions. You can't say the right is protected for keeping arms but not for bearing arms. This will be interesting to see how it plays out, especially in Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Don't get me wrong. I'm under no illusions that either of those two cities will come to their senses any time soon and agree with what I've stated here. They will continue to twist, obfuscate, lie, and do anything they can think of to keep their citizens from being free and exercising ALL of their rights, especially when it comes to the 2nd A. They are tyrants. In some ways I have pity on their subjects. On the other hand, those subjects voted for the tyrants and continue to do so. They've locked themselves up in their own virtual prisons in many respects. Too bad for them. I feel the most sorry for the freedom loving people who have voted against the tyrants and fought them any way they could. They have to suffer or leave. I just might pick the latter, though I understand that's not always an easy proposition, nor a desirable one.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 03:19 PM   #174
USAFNoDak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
Quote:
Tom, the militias you speak of are unauthorized paramilitary organizations. they are not protected by the Second Amendment.
I don't believe the Second Amendment protects any sort of militia. It protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", one of the reasons being that a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state.

I do believe that it should be up to the authorities within the states to call forth their respective militia before a bunch of guys just show up with guns ready to do whatever they think is necessary for whatever reasons. I don't believe what the founders had in mind was for armed individuals to take matters into their own hands outside of any governing influence or official notice. If there is a natural disaster and the governor of a specific state, for whatever reason, asks for volunteers to show up with their own arms to perform some duty under the guidance and direction of a state government official, that's just fine and dandy. No one can force you to show up, but if you want to, go for it.

If the crap were to really hit the fan, all bets are off. Who knows what that would look like, when it would happen, what the conditions would be, or what would end up being done? I don't believe that's something we can plan for. If it ever came to that, we'd all try to do our best to cope with it. Certain people would assume leadership roles, and others would follow them or form their own groups. You can't predict what might happen amongst humans when a nasty crisis causes panic and turmoil on a grand scale.

Guys getting together on their own to practice military duties is fine as long as they don't break any laws or specifically and intentionally target any individual(s) for harm. But a group who does that is more of a private army than what was meant by "the militia" during the early days of the nation. That's my opinion.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams.
USAFNoDak is offline  
Old July 2, 2010, 06:23 PM   #175
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
I believe in Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled by 5-4 that the Second Amendment in the US Constitution protected a FUNDAMENTAL, INDIVIDUAL right.
Just a small correction: the Court did not rule that the RKBA was "fundamental." That may have been the fly in the ointment for a couple of minor post-Heller suits.

That one little word carries a great deal of legal weight. Fortunately, Alito saw fit to echo the Palko language in his opinion:

Quote:
In sum, it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty. [Majority Opinion, p. 31]
As such, the 2nd Amendment (at least the part we've got so far) gets elevated to a higher standard of protection.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12879 seconds with 8 queries