Death of Scalia Puts Court's Gun Stance into Question

haymarket · Feb 20, 2016

matchlight said:
I don't agree with that interpretation of the language in the Pennsylvania and Vermont constitutions. As Heller provided extensive evidence for, "the people" was often used to refer to individuals.

And individual citizen is a person - not a PEOPLES.

That is doubletalk. One purpose for the Second Amendment was to protect a citizens' militia, which as Justice Scalia explained was not a formal government organization, but rather a subset of the People.

The Constitution is clear. The militia is necessary for the security of the State. That is the nation with its government.

The right to keep and bear arms has always been individual, period.

No. Only Massachusetts had the right without mention of being attached to the larger community interest as a collective.

As you must know from your thorough analysis of Justice Scalia's majority opinion in Heller, it had been firmly established as an individual right in England by the Declaration of Right of 1689, in reaction to the use of select militias by the Stuart Kings James II and Charles II to oppress dissident Protestants.

We don't live n England. We kicked the English to hell and their laws with them. Scalia once again went through the labors of Hercules to invent something that was simply not there in anything other than the mind of the far right on this issue.

State or federal laws restrictions of the right do not necessarily infringe it, provided they are of the type already recognized by 1791--e.g. against felons and insane persons keeping or bearing arms, bearing concealed arms, keeping and bearing arms not in common use, bearing arms in certain sensitive places, etc.

And we could argue forever without resolution about what common use means or what are certain sensitive places. But none of those words are in the Amendment anyways.

To acknowledge that certain restrictions already applied to the right to keep and bear arms when it was guaranteed by the Bill of Rights is no more to acknowledge that today, laws may impose other types of restrictions on that right, than to acknowledge that defamation was not part of the right to free speech even in 1791 is to acknowledge that today, we may make laws against speech critical of the President.

The First Amendment covers speech. The Second Amendment does not. Please take that straw man back into the barn and save it for a gullible sap who does not know the difference.

matchlight · Feb 21, 2016

haymarket said:
And individual citizen is a person - not a PEOPLES.

The Constitution is clear. The militia is necessary for the security of the State. That is the nation with its government.

No. Only Massachusetts had the right without mention of being attached to the larger community interest as a collective.

We don't live n England. We kicked the English to hell and their laws with them. Scalia once again went through the labors of Hercules to invent something that was simply not there in anything other than the mind of the far right on this issue.

And we could argue forever without resolution about what common use means or what are certain sensitive places. But none of those words are in the Amendment anyways.

The First Amendment covers speech. The Second Amendment does not. Please take that straw man back into the barn and save it for a gullible sap who does not know the difference.

Your comments are mostly false, and whatever parts of them are not false are uninformed. Your comment about the militia is particularly simple-minded. If you had really read Heller carefully, as you claim, you would know it offered many examples of how the word "people" was used in reference to individual rights, both in the Constitution and other documents of that time.

Your earlier comment about being willing to entertain the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is individual is disingenuous. You are no more prepared to consider that than Justice Stevens was. At least he knew the constitutional issues in detail, and did not witlessly dig in behind a position without even understanding the arguments.

My analogy to the First Amendment is valid, although it went over your head. You and your fellow gun-banners don't get to cook up novel restrictions on the Second Amendment right, any more than leftists who despise the freedom of speech get to make a law against criticizing the President on the ground that is defamation and therefore not constitutionally protected.

American law derives directly from English law. The men of the founding generation learned most of their law from Blackstone's Commentaries, and English law from the 17th and 18th centuries is extremely important in determining what the Second Amendment means. If you don't even know something that basic, you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

Keep prattling Justice Stevens' losing views on this subject all you want--it won't change a damned thing. Heller is not going anywhere, because your president is not going to get yet one more justice who disrespects the Constitution on the Supreme Court, and because his fellow unpatriotic Marxist liar, the Belle of Benghazi, is more likely to end up in the big house than the White House.

haymarket · Feb 21, 2016

matchlight said:
Your comments are mostly false, and whatever parts of them are not false are uninformed. Your comment about the militia is particularly simple-minded. If you had really read Heller carefully, as you claim, you would know it offered many examples of how the word "people" was used in reference to individual rights, both in the Constitution and other documents of that time..

As i said already - "tortured"... working hard to find something that was not what he pretended it was.

The SecondAmendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights which tells us why it is there and what its purpose is. And that is clear - to protect the state with a militia. As you may or may not be aware - we were a fledgling nation struggling to stay alive and could not afford a standing army - so this was the alternative.

Your earlier comment about being willing to entertain the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is individual is disingenuous. You are no more prepared to consider that than Justice Stevens was. At least he knew the constitutional issues in detail, and did not witlessly dig in behind a position without even understanding the arguments.

'So now you are the Amazing Kristin and can pretend to read minds? Why don't we just quite and let you write both sides of our discussion then?

I stated I had no problem with Scalia saying that the right had evolved to an individual right if he also would have countered that with the announcement that the peoples representatives have a perfect right and power regulate it with laws providing the right was not prevented from being exercised.

My analogy to the First Amendment is valid, although it went over your head. You and your fellow gun-banners don't get to cook up novel restrictions on the Second Amendment right, any more than leftists who despise the freedom of speech get to make a law against criticizing the President on the ground that is defamation and therefore not constitutionally protected.

No - your attempted use of the First Amendment is the typical gun lobby supporter attempt at intellectual fraud since each Amendment is distinct and individual and the language of one DOES NOT apply to the other.

Stick to the Second and what it says and leave the others alone if you prize intellectual honesty.

American law derives directly from English law. The men of the founding generation learned most of their law from Blackstone's Commentaries, and English law from the 17th and 18th centuries is extremely important in determining what the Second Amendment means. If you don't even know something that basic, you have no idea what you are talking about on this subject.

1776 flushed all that away as far as any binding meaning on us. We were then free to move on - and we did.

Keep prattling Justice Stevens' losing views on this subject all you want--it won't change a damned thing. Heller is not going anywhere, because your president is not going to get yet one more justice who disrespects the Constitution on the Supreme Court, and because his fellow unpatriotic Marxist liar, the Belle of Benghazi, is more likely to end up in the big house than the White House

Attacking me or anyone else with ideological vitriol is a poor substitute for debate.

matchlight · Feb 21, 2016

Thrilla said:
do what you " must" ... just don't infringe on the peoples right to keep and bear arms, and we'll be fine.

and I hate to be the one to tell you, but Heller is now settled, it over, and it's precedent..... stare decisis is an integral legal principle in our system, and you really want it to stay that way.

Sometime you might want to read Justice Scalia's mocking comments in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 about stare decisis. He strongly implied it sometimes made a convenient justification, noting that the same Anthony Kennedy who was overruling Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence, after seventeen years, had piously intoned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 about how Roe v. Wade, then nineteen years old, must be preserved because of stare decisis. Scalia was clearly suggesting that Kennedy used stare decisis one way in Casey, when it helped him keep a phony constitutional right to abortion alive, and just the opposite way in Lawrence, when it helped him gin up an implied constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.

Thrilla · Feb 22, 2016

matchlight said:
Sometime you might want to read Justice Scalia's mocking comments in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 about stare decisis. He strongly implied it sometimes made a convenient justification, noting that the same Anthony Kennedy who was overruling Bowers v. Hardwick in Lawrence, after seventeen years, had piously intoned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 about how Roe v. Wade, then nineteen years old, must be preserved because of stare decisis. Scalia was clearly suggesting that Kennedy used stare decisis one way in Casey, when it helped him keep a phony constitutional right to abortion alive, and just the opposite way in Lawrence, when it helped him gin up an implied constitutional right to homosexual sodomy.

aye,.... and I have my own opinions regarding Stare Decisis... but we all have to contend with it's existence... and we have ot contend with Justice who sometimes use it to further an agenda.

as for Kennedy, that fits his persona... he's not known for being tied to an ideology, or any legal principles, for that matter..... which is what makes him the swing vote ( he'll no longer be the swing vote, so we'll see if he changes his stripes at all)

jaeger19 · Feb 22, 2016

jet57 said:
Your first line makes no sense at all and is a bastardization of the point that - all first time gun criminals are all law abiding citizens with a gun until tehy commit the crime, the Sandy Hook shooter etc chief among them.

As for magazines, we're talking about 5 - 7 or 10 rounds, we're talking about 30 or more. The Aurora theater massacre noted for the 100 round style. So you're being intentionally misleading on that one.

I never talked about flash suppressors and I don;t know of anybody here who has, but its like the silencer thing, a matter of state choice as to lying in wait with a a more lethal weapon...

And so on... what? All of the states that have restrictions have come to them through legal and constitutional means, so just because you and your friends don't like it, that does not make it illegal, unconstitutional or unreasonable.

You have yet to show how these tins are unreasonable.

1. Exactly right. So if they are willing to commit murder.. they are not going to be deterred by a gun control law.. Like the Sandy Hook Killer. not to mention that Sandy hook murderer KILLED HIS MOTHER AND STOLER HER WEAPON... and you think its reasonable to call for a background check as a way to prevent Sandy Hook!

2. As for magazines we are talking about 5-7 rounds. Like in NEW YORK that placed a ban on 10 round magazines... plus three 10 round magazines equals thirty rounds. No misleading there.

3. but your "reasonable gun control advocates have",, For example under the "reasonable laws you support".. a weapons having a flash suppressor is considered as making it an "assault weapon" were it does not make the weapon any more lethal than any other firearm.

Same to with a suppressor.. the suppressor does not make the firearm ANY MORE LETHAL than any other firearm. In fact in some cases it makes the firearm less lethal by decreasing accuracy or by decreasing the bullets velocity (or requiring lower velocity shells to work).

and no not all states with restriction have come to them through legal and constitutional means. In fact NY's restrictions were just struck down by a judge.. as were DC's restrictions in Heller..and many other states and cities have had to relax restrictions because they are not constitutional and don;t pass constitutional muster.

I have more than shown why these things are unreasonable.

jet57 · Feb 22, 2016

jaeger19 said:
1. Exactly right. So if they are willing to commit murder.. they are not going to be deterred by a gun control law.. Like the Sandy Hook Killer. not to mention that Sandy hook murderer KILLED HIS MOTHER AND STOLER HER WEAPON... and you think its reasonable to call for a background check as a way to prevent Sandy Hook!

2. As for magazines we are talking about 5-7 rounds. Like in NEW YORK that placed a ban on 10 round magazines... plus three 10 round magazines equals thirty rounds. No misleading there.

3. but your "reasonable gun control advocates have",, For example under the "reasonable laws you support".. a weapons having a flash suppressor is considered as making it an "assault weapon" were it does not make the weapon any more lethal than any other firearm.

Same to with a suppressor.. the suppressor does not make the firearm ANY MORE LETHAL than any other firearm. In fact in some cases it makes the firearm less lethal by decreasing accuracy or by decreasing the bullets velocity (or requiring lower velocity shells to work).

and no not all states with restriction have come to them through legal and constitutional means. In fact NY's restrictions were just struck down by a judge.. as were DC's restrictions in Heller..and many other states and cities have had to relax restrictions because they are not constitutional and don;t pass constitutional muster.

I have more than shown why these things are unreasonable.

Look, the less a magazine holds, the fewer can shot at one time. In Calif 10 is the max. If New York is 7, then that's New York. Takes time to change a clip. If a proper background check had been done, ("Are there any mentally ill people in your home?") then her sick kid wouldn't have been allowed near guns right? I didn't say she couldn't own them, but, wouldn't it have been nice if she had kept them in a locked safe...

I don't know about laws and suppressors. I think those are silly, but cops tell me it facilitates "lying in wait". So I dunno. Like I said, I don't get that one.

The laws that are on the books have come through legal means. I'm not talking about contested ones that got dumped.

TurtleDude · Feb 22, 2016

jet57 said:
Look, the less a magazine holds, the fewer can shot at one time. In Calif 10 is the max. If New York is 7, then that's New York. Takes time to change a clip. If a proper background check had been done, ("Are there any mentally ill people in your home?") then her sick kid wouldn't have been allowed near guns right? I didn't say she couldn't own them, but, wouldn't it have been nice if she had kept them in a locked safe...

I don't know about laws and suppressors. I think those are silly, but cops tell me it facilitates "lying in wait". So I dunno. Like I said, I don't get that one.

The laws that are on the books have come through legal means. I'm not talking about contested ones that got dumped.

so you really are arguing for guns that cannot take a detachable magazine You also seem unaware of the fact that those who cannot legally own firearms really aren't going to follow magazine limits since they are possessing firearms that they cannot legally have. And since CRIMINALS instigate and initiate attacks on innocent citizens, they have an advantage. Magazine limits only handicap the defenders. If I am planning a violent attack I am going to either have lots of ammo or several weapons or both. A defender who is not expecting a violent attack and may only have a few seconds to obtain his weapon is going to need lots of rounds if the attack is perpetrated by multiple attackers or attackers with lots of ammo

magazine limits are yet another way Bannites try to make the lives of violent criminals safer

BretJ · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
Look, the less a magazine holds, the fewer can shot at one time. In Calif 10 is the max. If New York is 7, then that's New York. Takes time to change a clip. If a proper background check had been done, ("Are there any mentally ill people in your home?") then her sick kid wouldn't have been allowed near guns right? I didn't say she couldn't own them, but, wouldn't it have been nice if she had kept them in a locked safe...

I don't know about laws and suppressors. I think those are silly, but cops tell me it facilitates "lying in wait". So I dunno. Like I said, I don't get that one.

The laws that are on the books have come through legal means. I'm not talking about contested ones that got dumped.

Well thought out argument Jet.

I will say though that once you shoot a suppressed firearm, you are hard pressed to do without. For what it is worth, I first shot suppressed while shooting in the UK. If you own a firearm there, they prefer you suppress it for courtesy and hearing conservation. I truly believe if you actually shot one, you would discover that they are not the Hollywood assassins accessory they make them out to be. They are certainly not silent so I would question the whole "lying in wait" issue. Seriously, if you have access to a range that rents them, you should really try one. As a final point they have been legal in most states for decades for hunting.

matchlight · Feb 23, 2016

Thrilla said:
aye,.... and I have my own opinions regarding Stare Decisis... but we all have to contend with it's existence... and we have ot contend with Justice who sometimes use it to further an agenda.

as for Kennedy, that fits his persona... he's not known for being tied to an ideology, or any legal principles, for that matter..... which is what makes him the swing vote ( he'll no longer be the swing vote, so we'll see if he changes his stripes at all)

Justice Kennedy grew up in Sacramento, and when he was in high school he once got to shake the hand of Earl Warren, then the Governor. He was impressed--maybe too much. I think he imagines from time to time that he is the reincarnation of Chief Justice Warren, his hero--a knight errant riding around on his white steed, taking it upon himself to vanquish everything he considers a social evil.

What is so frustrating about Kennedy is that he knows better. Unlike, say, Justice Sotomayor, who is a weak link, he is damned good. He has authored brilliantly reasoned majority opinions on very complex, difficult subjects. And then, when it comes to one of his pet social justice issues, he goes and writes tripe like Romer, and Casey, and Lawrence, and Windsor, and Obergefell. In every one of those dishonest, concocted decisions, Justice Scalia wrote a scathing dissent--and every one of them richly deserved his attacks.

jet57 · Feb 23, 2016

BretJ said:
Well thought out argument Jet.

I will say though that once you shoot a suppressed firearm, you are hard pressed to do without. For what it is worth, I first shot suppressed while shooting in the UK. If you own a firearm there, they prefer you suppress it for courtesy and hearing conservation. I truly believe if you actually shot one, you would discover that they are not the Hollywood assassins accessory they make them out to be. They are certainly not silent so I would question the whole "lying in wait" issue. Seriously, if you have access to a range that rents them, you should really try one. As a final point they have been legal in most states for decades for hunting.

I haven't fired one, they're illegal in my state, but they're easy to make. I'm not that into them, but as a collectible piece I can see the value in them. In the UK you can own them with a permit, which I think is a good idea. I don't why we have a fuss about them here.

TurtleDude · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
I haven't fired one, they're illegal in my state, but they're easy to make. I'm not that into them, but as a collectible piece I can see the value in them. In the UK you can own them with a permit, which I think is a good idea. I don't why we have a fuss about them here.

"Silencers" were added onto the NFA tax scheme in 1934 (which was intended to be a ban since the 200 dollar tax stamp was many times more than what the actual device cost-more than a month's wages in Depression era USA) because some game wardens speculated that such devices would be used by rural folks to poach deer. like most of the reasons behind the 1934 NFA, it was a fictional worry and most likely not even believed by those who pushed it but that is why.

while some Mafia hits have been accomplished with suppressed 22 caliber pistols (indeed I saw a surveillance tape of a Mafia hit in NJ with a suppressed high standard 22 in Newark during Rush hour), those rare cleaners who use such weapons are using such devices that were expertly made by underground mechanics. Ohio recently allowed hunting with them.

there are rumors such devices are going to be removed from the NFA list and they should be

jaeger19 · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
Look, the less a magazine holds, the fewer can shot at one time. In Calif 10 is the max. If New York is 7, then that's New York. Takes time to change a clip. If a proper background check had been done, ("Are there any mentally ill people in your home?") then her sick kid wouldn't have been allowed near guns right? I didn't say she couldn't own them, but, wouldn't it have been nice if she had kept them in a locked safe...

I don't know about laws and suppressors. I think those are silly, but cops tell me it facilitates "lying in wait". So I dunno. Like I said, I don't get that one.

The laws that are on the books have come through legal means. I'm not talking about contested ones that got dumped.

Look.. criminals willing to murder someone.. are not going to follow a magazine restriction. and a ban on magazines is not going to affect criminals anymore than a ban on marijuana has prevented folks from getting it.

The mother underwent a background check.. and passed.

And she did keep them in a locked safe. We don't know exactly how he obtained them.. he KILLED HER and stole her weapons.

Right.. you don't know about laws and flash suppressors.. and noise suppressors.. and no they don't facilitate "lying in wait".. crap that's absurd. And neither does a pistol grip have anything to do with making a firearm an assault weapon.. or more dangerous.. and YET.. that's what is called a "reasonable restriction".

the laws on the books have not all come through legal means. That's absurd to say when we continue to have gun laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

sorry but that's the facts.

jaeger19 · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
I haven't fired one, they're illegal in my state, but they're easy to make. I'm not that into them, but as a collectible piece I can see the value in them. In the UK you can own them with a permit, which I think is a good idea. I don't why we have a fuss about them here.

Because folks like yourself that don;t have a clue about them.. think that a reasonable gun law is to restrict them. While you don;t know about them.

jet57 · Feb 23, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Look.. criminals willing to murder someone.. are not going to follow a magazine restriction. and a ban on magazines is not going to affect criminals anymore than a ban on marijuana has prevented folks from getting it.

If the killers couldn't get the magazines they wouldn't use them would they.

The mother underwent a background check.. and passed.

The background check didn't ask if there were any mentally ill people living in her house did it.

And she did keep them in a locked safe. We don't know exactly how he obtained them.. he KILLED HER and stole her weapons.

There's no evidence of that that I've seen, and if true, why did her mentally ill son have the combination? Yet more irresponsibility?

Right.. you don't know about laws and flash suppressors.. and noise suppressors.. and no they don't facilitate "lying in wait".. crap that's absurd. And neither does a pistol grip have anything to do with making a firearm an assault weapon.. or more dangerous.. and YET.. that's what is called a "reasonable restriction".

Well, I'll tell all the cops I know that they're wrong and that they should consult with you before deciding on what they've been told.
Moreover, I love the "you're not an expert so you can't comment" dodge. States have their powers, and the people that vote in the legislative representatives, and the reps themselves are obviously not experts: this isn't the O.J. thing with days and days of DNA "expert opinions". And while your at it, maybe the founders shouldn't have commented on or passed the second amendment.

Finally, why am I having to repeat all of this stuff to you?

the laws on the books have not all come through legal means. That's absurd to say when we continue to have gun laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

sorry but that's the facts.

They've all come through legal and constitutional means.

jet57 · Feb 23, 2016

jaeger19 said:
Because folks like yourself that don;t have a clue about them.. think that a reasonable gun law is to restrict them. While you don;t know about them.

I don't write the laws, I just obey them. And I've already said that I think laws on suppressors are silly and I don't support them, so what else do wanna comlpain about?

TurtleDude · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
If the killers couldn't get the magazines they wouldn't use them would they.

The background check didn't ask if there were any mentally ill people living in her house did it.

There's no evidence of that that I've seen, and if true, why did her mentally ill son have the combination? Yet more irresponsibility?

Well, I'll tell all the cops I know that they're wrong and that they should consult with you before deciding on what they've been told.
Moreover, I love the "you're not an expert so you can't comment" dodge. States have their powers, and the people that vote in the legislative representatives, and the reps themselves are obviously not experts: this isn't the O.J. thing with days and days of DNA "expert opinions". And while your at it, maybe the founders should have commented on or passed the second amendment.

Finally, why am I having to repeat all of this stuff to you?

the laws on the books have not all come through legal means. That's absurd to say when we continue to have gun laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional.

sorry but that's the facts.

this is idiotic, you make the assumption a magazine ban of stuff that there are already millions upon millions out there is going to be effective. Right now magazines have no serial numbers, can be bought without ID in free states and shipped across state lines. I have hundreds of normal capacity magazines as do most serious shooters so all a magazine ban is going to do is make those things more expensive for legitimate owners. A ban that would make it illegal to own what you already have is never going to work or be passed and you know it. so your support of magazine bans is really stupid if crime control is your actual goal, which I know is not true

do you think constitutional rights should be curtailed due to the status of someone you are related to? that is an interesting rape of "innocent unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" but then again gun banners really don't give a damn about constitutional safeguards do they?

TurtleDude · Feb 23, 2016

jet57 said:
I don't write the laws, I just obey them. And I've already said that I think laws on suppressors are silly and I don't support them, so what else do wanna comlpain about?

you just stated you think a magazine ban would be good since it would prevent criminals from getting them didn't you?

LetsGoBrandon · Feb 23, 2016

Crovax said:
No it doesnt not acknowledge that there must be restrictions, only that legally there can be restrictions.

I don't know why you are so gung-ho to restrict constitutional rights, should the 1st, 4th, 5th and 8th amendments have restrictions on them also?

He's not. he just enjoys doing windups.

Death of Scalia Puts Court's Gun Stance into Question

haymarket

matchlight

haymarket

matchlight

Thrilla

jaeger19

jet57

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

BretJ

matchlight

jet57

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

jaeger19

jaeger19

jet57

jet57

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands

LetsGoBrandon