The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 28, 2016, 07:33 AM   #26
FITASC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 6, 2014
Posts: 4,854
Not disagreeing, but that is one of the "death by a thousand cuts" being employed by our enemies. A little nick here, a little nick there, and you don't even realized you've bled to death.
__________________
"I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'—in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government—it doesn't own you."- Frank Zappa
FITASC is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:08 PM   #27
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 265
Quote:
IF??? It's been settled by the Supreme Court!
That means nothing. It was a 5-4 decision, and just because the Court rules a certain way doesn't mean it is right. Pro-lifers argue this all the time about Roe v Wade and right-wingers overall about the healthcare ruling. Democrats argue it over the Citizens United case. What if the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right? Would it be "settled" then?
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:10 PM   #28
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 265
One "positive" of Clinton is that she literally seems to say whatever is required for the moment. So she is anti-gun right now because it is required for her to get the Democratic party base votes. But while I think she generally agrees with the anti-gun position, she doesn't strike me as someone hellbent on it the way Obama has been, where it is a really big issue for her, something that she is passionate about. I think she is more passionate about getting things like universal childcare, universal healthcare, "equal pay for equal work," etc...passed.

If she tries to pass gun control, it will lead to another war and a major expenditure of political capital that could really do her in and prevent her from getting the other stuff she'd like passed. The major threat to gun rights from her IMO is who she'd appoint to the Supreme Court.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:21 PM   #29
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
That means nothing. It was a 5-4 decision, and just because the Court rules a certain way doesn't mean it is right. Pro-lifers argue this all the time about Roe v Wade and right-wingers overall about the healthcare ruling. Democrats argue it over the Citizens United case. What if the Court had ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right? Would it be "settled" then?
It's one thing to disagree with a Supreme Court ruling. There have been a few I'm not too happy with. But I don't pretend they didn't happen.

Hillary didn't say Heller was wrong, she acted as though the issue wasn't settled. Which it is.
natman is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:22 PM   #30
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 265
Even if the Supreme Court ever ruled that the Second doesn't protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, it really shouldn't matter anyway, at least at the federal level. The Founders who supported the Constitution were clear that if the government doesn't have the explicit authority granted to it to restrict a right, then it doesn't have the authority to do so. So since there is no authority granted to it to restrict arms, it has no authority to do so. They saw a Bill of Rights as redundant and un-necessary, and even a possible threat, as it could give the impression that the government does have such an authority. Here is Alexander Hamilton on the subject in Federalist 84:

Quote:
It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA, obtained by the barons, sword in hand, from King John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by succeeding princes. Such was the Petition of Right assented to by Charles I., in the beginning of his reign. Such, also, was the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. It is evident, therefore, that, according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations. "WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Here is a better recognition of popular rights, than volumes of those aphorisms which make the principal figure in several of our State bills of rights, and which would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government.

But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns. If, therefore, the loud clamors against the plan of the convention, on this score, are well founded, no epithets of reprobation will be too strong for the constitution of this State. But the truth is, that both of them contain all which, in relation to their objects, is reasonably to be desired.

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

On the subject of the liberty of the press, as much as has been said, I cannot forbear adding a remark or two: in the first place, I observe, that there is not a syllable concerning it in the constitution of this State; in the next, I contend, that whatever has been said about it in that of any other State, amounts to nothing. What signifies a declaration, that "the liberty of the press shall be inviolably preserved"? What is the liberty of the press? Who can give it any definition which would not leave the utmost latitude for evasion? I hold it to be impracticable; and from this I infer, that its security, whatever fine declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it, must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.3 And here, after all, as is intimated upon another occasion, must we seek for the only solid basis of all our rights.

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. Is it one object of a bill of rights to declare and specify the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government? This is done in the most ample and precise manner in the plan of the convention; comprehending various precautions for the public security, which are not to be found in any of the State constitutions. Is another object of a bill of rights to define certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns? This we have seen has also been attended to, in a variety of cases, in the same plan. Adverting therefore to the substantial meaning of a bill of rights, it is absurd to allege that it is not to be found in the work of the convention. It may be said that it does not go far enough, though it will not be easy to make this appear; but it can with no propriety be contended that there is no such thing. It certainly must be immaterial what mode is observed as to the order of declaring the rights of the citizens, if they are to be found in any part of the instrument which establishes the government. And hence it must be apparent, that much of what has been said on this subject rests merely on verbal and nominal distinctions, entirely foreign from the substance of the thing.
So even without a Second Amendment, at least at the federal level, the government should still be restricted from passing any serious gun control. The only reason for the Bill of Rights's passage was to satisfy the anti-Federalists, who thought the government created by the Constitution was too powerful.

The Second Amendment is just a redundant extra saying that the government can't do something that it was never granted any such power to do in the first place. And we know for a fact that the individual right to self-defense was a concept understood by the Founders, as it was spoken of by Aristotle, Cicero, Algernon Sydney, and John Locke, all four that Jefferson said were the most influential in the writing of the Declaration of Independence.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:25 PM   #31
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 265
Quote:
It's one thing to disagree with a Supreme Court ruling. There have been a few I'm not too happy with. But I don't pretend they didn't happen.

Hillary didn't say Heller was wrong, she acted as though the issue wasn't settled. Which it is.
IMO, the only thing Heller "settled" to the gun controllers is that you have a right to keep a handgun in your home. So if they limit you to a one-round handgun that you must pay a fee, obtain a license, register, undergo a waiting period, Area 51-level background check, undergo training, fingerprinting, and then require you to keep it stored in a lockbox with the key located in a separate area of your home, then they are within the "settled precedent" of Heller.

All the above they will claim fits within the scope of the "reasonable regulations" aspect of Heller.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 06:44 PM   #32
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
IMO, the only thing Heller "settled" to the gun controllers is that you have a right to keep a handgun in your home.
You might want to actually read Heller and reconsider your opinions.

Quote:
Held:
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.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf page 1
So there's no "IF" about whether the Second Amendment is an individual right.

Quote:
So if they limit you to a one-round handgun that you must pay a fee, obtain a license, register, undergo a waiting period, Area 51-level background check, undergo training, fingerprinting, and then require you to keep it stored in a lockbox with the key located in a separate area of your home, then they are within the "settled precedent" of Heller.
Again, read the decision:

Quote:
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. ibid, page 3
natman is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 07:16 PM   #33
LogicMan
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 16, 2013
Posts: 265
Quote:
You might want to actually read Heller and reconsider your opinions.
I'm talking about how the gun control proponents interpret Heller, not what Heller actually says.

Quote:
So there's no "IF" about whether the Second Amendment is an individual right.
To the gun controllers who say that the ruling was wrong, it's a huge if. Ginsburg has repeatedly stated that she thinks the ruling was totally wrong and terrible and would love to be able to have another court case to reconsider and overturn Heller.

Quote:
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. ibid, page 3
Okay, so then they'd require all of what I mentioned except for the trigger lock. Look at what the Massachusetts Attorney General just did. Banned a whole slew of weapons in common use, clearly in defiance of Heller. Which the Massachusetts Supreme Court would uphold.
LogicMan is offline  
Old July 28, 2016, 08:26 PM   #34
natman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 24, 2008
Posts: 2,239
Quote:
I'm talking about how the gun control proponents interpret Heller, not what Heller actually says.
That wasn't at all clear. I took "IMO" to mean it was YOUR opinion. I can only respond to what you write, not what you intend to mean.

Hillary may get elected (God forbid), she may pack the Supreme Court with gun bigots, Heller may get overturned or diluted beyond recognition, but until that happens, the 2nd Amendment legally protects and individual right to keep and bear arms.

It's bad enough that the gun bigots want to gut the 2nd, but there's an even larger issue raised; ignoring the constitution, separation of powers and the rule of law. The gun bigots want to not only scuttle the 2nd, but are willing to wreck the 4th amendment as well to do it. If they get away with that, the rest of the Bill of Rights will be easier for them to ignore the next time it conflicts with their agenda.
natman 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 01:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07333 seconds with 8 queries