SCOTUS to decide on handgun ban - Page 4

Thales · 11-26-07, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waugeyman

Is it ok to compromise personal liberty and privacy in the name of security?? The government looks for loopholes and chips away at civil liberties all the time, whether the public cares or not depends on which way the proverbial wind is blowing.

In my original post I said it was about time they looked at this from a judicial perspective, and finally determine what the language of the amendment means. Many people take it literally word for word, and others just pick and choose which parts best suit their needs - after this gets sorted out it will be a little more black and white. Not to say that there won't be any grey somewhere in between, but it will certainly better define what the second amendment is, and what exactly it protects.

I agree. This has been one of the most controversial amendments for years, and I'm glad that SCOTUS is finally taking a look at it. This will probably be one of the more significant SC rulings for quite some time.

Considering the current conservative-leaning court, I'm guessing that individual firearms will be protected. That's always been my preferred interpretation, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

But if they rule that it's only militias... That would be somewhat worrying. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they start springing up all over the place, which in itself is worrying.

Should be interesting.

the makeout hobo · 11-27-07, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thales

I agree. This has been one of the most controversial amendments for years, and I'm glad that SCOTUS is finally taking a look at it. This will probably be one of the more significant SC rulings for quite some time.

Considering the current conservative-leaning court, I'm guessing that individual firearms will be protected. That's always been my preferred interpretation, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

But if they rule that it's only militias... That would be somewhat worrying. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they start springing up all over the place, which in itself is worrying.

Should be interesting.

Though there is also the question of whether all militias are allowed. The amendment mentions "well regulated militia", which might not include me and my friends running around the woods with guns on saturday afternoon.

Bleeding Head Ken · 11-27-07, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

Though there is also the question of whether all militias are allowed. The amendment mentions "well regulated militia", which might not include me and my friends running around the woods with guns on saturday afternoon.

Regulation doesn't mean government regulation.

Alexander Hamilton wrote that a militia acquired “the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia” by going “through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary.” [Federalist 29]

If you and your friends are running around in the woods with guns as part of your practice of drills and other exercises, that would entitle you to the character of a "well regulated militia."

the makeout hobo · 11-27-07, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bleeding Head Ken

Regulation doesn't mean government regulation.

Alexander Hamilton wrote that a militia acquired “the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia” by going “through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary.” [Federalist 29]

If you and your friends are running around in the woods with guns as part of your practice of drills and other exercises, that would entitle you to the character of a "well regulated militia."

But who decides whether a militia has had the training and perfection to make them "well regulated" or not? Obviuosly, not all militias will be "well regulated".

Voidwar · 11-28-07, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waugeyman

That's very true, amendments are meant to be set in stone, but even they can be changed, edited, added to, and altogether rescinded. I don't think amendments outrank legislation completely, simply because legislation creates amendments; however, legislation can be considered unconstitutional as well - it part of the beauty of our countries checks and balances.

You never took civics did you ?

Amendments are NOT made by legislation.

They are made by a Constitutional Congress, and then must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

Quote:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The bar is much higher, considering the ratification and the supermajority.

This is why Amendment / Constitution completely trumps mere legislation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waugeyman

Edit: I said before, I don't know if there was any political timing used. I don't know if they passed it right before elections or right after or what, but I do know that the decision to challenge that ban right now was a concious decision on the plantiffs part.

No more conscious than the gun grabbers passing their law at the time they did. Political things are done at political times.

waugeyman · 11-28-07, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thales

I agree. This has been one of the most controversial amendments for years, and I'm glad that SCOTUS is finally taking a look at it. This will probably be one of the more significant SC rulings for quite some time.

Considering the current conservative-leaning court, I'm guessing that individual firearms will be protected. That's always been my preferred interpretation, so I'm cautiously optimistic.

But if they rule that it's only militias... That would be somewhat worrying. And I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they start springing up all over the place, which in itself is worrying.

Should be interesting.

I think it will be interesting, I'm glad, because now there will be a more concrete definition, and people on both sides won't be able to use the ambiguity in the wording to support their causes - looking at most of the Bill of Rights, there was a major court decision that helped to better define the language, with the exception of the 2nd amendment .

waugeyman · 11-28-07, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the makeout hobo

But who decides whether a militia has had the training and perfection to make them "well regulated" or not? Obviuosly, not all militias will be "well regulated".

That would mean war re-enactors would probably be some of the best militias out there. I would hope if they do decide that way, that they take the extra step and actually define what a well-regulated militia is as well, otherwise they will have another case in two days.

waugeyman · 11-28-07, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Voidwar

You never took civics did you ?

Amendments are NOT made by legislation.

They are made by a Constitutional Congress, and then must be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states.

The bar is much higher, considering the ratification and the supermajority.

This is why Amendment / Constitution completely trumps mere legislation.

No more conscious than the gun grabbers passing their law at the time they did. Political things are done at political times.

I took multiple political science classes, and civics in high school. Unfortunately, you're attacking my use of language which is more argumentative than anything. By legislation I meant that Congress must first introduce a piece of legislation proposing an amendment to the constitution. Then, because of our bicameral legislature, both the House and Senate must pass by two thirds ... and so on. An amendment is a much more powerful than simple legislation - yes, but simple legislation must occur in order to create an amendment. Without it no amendment (after the original 10) would exist. I was referring to that specific power to introduce amendments. Think of it like a car, the engine is far more powerful than the spark plug, but without the spark plug the engine would not start let alone run. So yes, amendments are made by legislation, even if it is one step in a long process, because it's the first step.

I hope that clears everything up - it's a little strange to be arguing the same side, and it is way off the actual topic of this thread.

I've said it at least twice, I don't know what the original guys were thinking since I wasn't there, just that I know why its happening now. I think that this will be a very important decision, and the first real test for this group of justices. It is my hope that they clear up the ambiguity surrounding this amendment - which way it goes doesn't really matter to me, I just want the clarification.

Voidwar · 11-29-07, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waugeyman

I don't think amendments outrank legislation completely

This statement of yours was absolutely innaccurate.

I apologize for the tone of the "civics" question, but I felt the statement was about 180 degrees from true and had to be rebutted.

Legislation can override other legislation.
Legislation cannot override The Constitution or the Amendments that become part of it via Ratification . . .

Amendments outrank legislation completely.
Wherever the two disagree, the legislation is supposed to be thrown out and the Constitution ( or Amendments thereto ) stuck to.

the makeout hobo · 11-29-07, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by waugeyman

That would mean war re-enactors would probably be some of the best militias out there. I would hope if they do decide that way, that they take the extra step and actually define what a well-regulated militia is as well, otherwise they will have another case in two days.

Well I know MY civil war reenactment regiment, the 71st Pennsylvanian Volunteers, would definately kick ***... I mean be well regulated.