How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment [W:32,484]

[vegas giants]

Not just Constitutional - the right thing to do.

Are the Japanese still in camps? Nope. But Wickard still stands. LOL

 

[vegas giants]

still lies I see what did i lose? and you are wrong yet again. You keep spamming Wickard and you have been schooled on why your worship of it is stupid

Sorry son....I am not the only one who questions your ability to read the constitution. LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

Sorry son....I am not the only one who questions your ability to read the constitution. LOL

can you name a single poster who thinks your "understanding" of the constitution has any merit? just one would do

 

[vegas giants]

can you name a single poster who thinks your "understanding" of the constitution has any merit? just one would do

Bucky. You want five more? You lose again LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

Bucky. You want five more? You lose again LOL

Cite the post where Bucky is approving of your "Constitutional knowledge"

and that is a gut buster btw

 

[vegas giants]

Cite the post where Bucky is approving of your "Constitutional knowledge"

and that is a gut buster btw

No No No. Now its your turn. And post number please. LOL

 

[TurtleDude]

No No No. Now its your turn. And post number please. LOL

did you actually read what jaeger wrote given that is the source of your dishonest claim?

 

[vegas giants]

did you actually read what jaeger wrote given that is the source of your dishonest claim?

He said that your interpretation of the constitution was flat out wrong. LOL

 

[Helix]

Moderator's Warning:

Even light insults from this point forward will result in points and thread bans. This is a zero tolerance warning. Posts made before this in thread warning may still be subject to moderation.

 

[TurtleDude]

Here is a well written article about the 2nd. It rejects the silly claim that the second amendment was intended to give power to either the federal government or the state government

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

 

[TurtleDude]

with the advance of the internet, more and more americans, who years ago, did not have easy access to law review articles and other scholarly dissertations on the second Amendment, now do. and the dishonesty of the FDR administration is becoming more and more well known to people other than constitutional scholars and federal judges. This increase in knowledge was partially responsible for the fact that most legal scholars have completely rejected the blatantly discredited "collective rights" position that was created in an effort to justify the FDR gun laws as well as some state gun provisions designed to disarm blacks and "papists"

lots of commentators noted that the change in the legal scholars views-kicked off by Sanford Levinson's seminal article in the Yale Law Journal-"The Embarrassing Second Amendment" was what started this avalanche of legal scholars presenting the correct interpretation of the second which in turn led to Heller.

the article can be downloaded from the net.

 

[vegas giants]

with the advance of the internet, more and more americans, who years ago, did not have easy access to law review articles and other scholarly dissertations on the second Amendment, now do. and the dishonesty of the FDR administration is becoming more and more well known to people other than constitutional scholars and federal judges. This increase in knowledge was partially responsible for the fact that most legal scholars have completely rejected the blatantly discredited "collective rights" position that was created in an effort to justify the FDR gun laws as well as some state gun provisions designed to disarm blacks and "papists"

lots of commentators noted that the change in the legal scholars views-kicked off by Sanford Levinson's seminal article in the Yale Law Journal-"The Embarrassing Second Amendment" was what started this avalanche of legal scholars presenting the correct interpretation of the second which in turn led to Heller.

the article can be downloaded from the net.

What is crystal clear is the FDR administration has been over for 80 years. If anything stands from that era it is because the people of TODAY want it to stand. And thus Wickard represents the will of the people TODAY.

 

[TurtleDude]

What is crystal clear is the FDR administration has been over for 80 years. If anything stands from that era it is because the people of TODAY want it to stand. And thus Wickard represents the will of the people TODAY.

I doubt one of 50 people know what Wickard is. but lots of unconstitutional programs are popular. That is true

 

[vegas giants]

I doubt one of 50 people know what Wickard is. but lots of unconstitutional programs are popular. That is true

And wickard will stand. The people want it. Better get used to it

 

[TurtleDude]

And wickard will stand. The people want it. Better get used to it

so you are able to predict what the supreme court does? are you aware that the non-economic activity jurisdiction has been rolled back significantly? You see, the scholarship is going against that incredibly dishonest and broad expansion of the commerce clause. the court tends to follow the scholarship.

 

[vegas giants]

so you are able to predict what the supreme court does? are you aware that the non-economic activity jurisdiction has been rolled back significantly? You see, the scholarship is going against that incredibly dishonest and broad expansion of the commerce clause. the court tends to follow the scholarship.

Where is the case that will challenge it? Never. Going. To. Happen.

 

[TurtleDude]

Where is the case that will challenge it? Never. Going. To. Happen.

You do know that the AHCA case involved the wickard expansion and 5 justices rejected the commerce clause justification.

 

[vegas giants]

You do know that the AHCA case involved the wickard expansion and 5 justices rejected the commerce clause justification.

So what is the case that will end federal regulation of guns? I'd love to read the brief.

 

[TurtleDude]

So what is the case that will end federal regulation of guns? I'd love to read the brief.

I doubt there ever will be that erased. Our Government has shown a shocking propensity to never give up power it has grabbed But some of the expansions will be rolled back, sooner or later

 

[vegas giants]

I doubt there ever will be that erased. Our Government has shown a shocking propensity to never give up power it has grabbed But some of the expansions will be rolled back, sooner or later

Not for guns. Get used to it

 

[TurtleDude]

Not for guns. Get used to it

I guess we will see. 15 years ago I heard the same thing about the DC gun ban and the Chicago gun ban. a few more Amul Thapars on the circuit courts and if RBG and AK step down and are replaced by say Amul Thapar or another Neil Gorsuch or better yet, another Clarence Thomas, things might well change

 

[vegas giants]

I guess we will see. 15 years ago I heard the same thing about the DC gun ban and the Chicago gun ban. a few more Amul Thapars on the circuit courts and if RBG and AK step down and are replaced by say Amul Thapar or another Neil Gorsuch or better yet, another Clarence Thomas, things might well change

Well maybe....in another 80 years. Lol. Where is the case?

 

[TurtleDude]

Well maybe....in another 80 years. Lol

Do you have any specialized knowledge that guarantees the supreme court won't strike down some gun bans?

 

[vegas giants]

Do you have any specialized knowledge that guarantees the supreme court won't strike down some gun bans?

Where. Is. The. Case? Lol

 

[jet57]

So what is the case that will end federal regulation of guns? I'd love to read the brief.

There is no case; there never will be and it will never be sourced. That is just more made up stuff to try and validate a point that never has anything to back it up.