• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments [W:609]

Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You are arguing that you did to me what I did to you.

The article was quite clear. You are trying to get around what it says, but that argument fails.

:mrgreen: Thank you for accepting that the primacy of the 2d Amendment carried its rights into the organized militia. At least we got the argument straight on that finally.

Lets see if you can express some answers honestly

1) you claimed that HELLER incorporated the second amendment so it applies to state action

2) I said it was McDonald. I proved that. Your response was to claim that the YLJ said Heller and McDonald which proves you don't understand the ruling

3) you claimed that being in the unorganized militia GETS members the right to keep and bear arms. I corrected you and noted that citizens always had that right and the constitution not only refused to give the federal government any power to change that, the second amendment negatively restricted the federal government

you then tried to weasel around your lies by claiming that the people have the right to keep and bear arms and that means they bring that right to the unorganized militia which is essentially saying nothing that matters.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Let's go back to: do you agree that the citizens have the right to own and bear arms. If you do, you agree with me.

Let's go back to: do you agree that the citizens carried that right with them to the unorganized militia. If you do, you agree with me.

Does the Yale Law article says that Heller incorporated the 2d, along with McDonald. If you do, then you are partially right.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Let's go back to: do you agree that the citizens have the right to own and bear arms. If you do, you agree with me.

Let's go back to: do you agree that the citizens carried that right with them to the unorganized militia. If you do, you agree with me.

Does the Yale Law article says that Heller incorporated the 2d, along with McDonald. If you do, then you are partially right.

I know what McDonald says because I had long conversations with the people who argued the case. Same with the guy who argued the Heller case. and it was McDonald that incorporated the second amendment Not Heller. What Heller did was affirm that the second amendment guaranteed an individual right free and clear from a militia membership requirement and McDonald incorporated that definition of the second amendment to the states.

and I have always said that the people have the RKBA as individuals and that the federal government is prohibited from infringing on that right because of the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment. YOU CLEARLY suggested that only those in the unorganized militia (which you never defined) GOT that right
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So you disagree with the Yale Law article.

OK. Anecdotal evidence is, in this case, not all that conclusive.

I never infered or suggest that "only those in the unorganized militia (which you never defined) GOT that right". I said they had that right because the were citizens. All citizens had the right.

:)
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

from Gura's petition for a WRIT OF CERT in McDonald

QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated as against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immu- nities or Due Process Clauses.

now if Heller had already incorporated the second amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment that would not have been a necessary question presented.

if one actually has litigated federal appellate issues, one would know that

https://web.archive.org/web/2009061...nt/uploads/2009/06/mcdonald_cert_petition.pdf

from that Petition

The court below also declined to incorporate the Second Amendment under the Fourteenth Amend- ment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause, following this Court’s decisions which held that the provision incorporates only so-called rights of national citi- zenship. App. 2.
Application of this Court’s selective incorporation doctrine is “required” to resolve the question of the Second Amendment’s incorporation through the Four- teenth Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2813 n.23 (2008). Doing so for the first time in this case, this Court should reverse the judgment below.


those of us who actually have engaged in federal appellate litigation know damn well that if HELLER HAD INCORPORATED the second amendment via the 14th, that would have been CITED in the writ and there would not have been a SPLIT between the 9th and the 7th circuit.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

So you disagree with the Yale Law article.

OK. Anecdotal evidence is, in this case, not all that conclusive.

I never infered or suggest that "only those in the unorganized militia (which you never defined) GOT that right". I said they had that right because the were citizens. All citizens had the right.

:)

I didn't disagree with the YLJ article. I disagreed with your dishonest and erroneous interpretation
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Let's stay with the discussion, and let's leave personalities alone.

This may help you. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

You have the last word tonight, TurtleDude.

I am going to watch a movie with my wife.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Moderator's Warning:
Folks, there's a topic here. That topic is NOT in any way your opinions, thoughts, or views about each other. Since everyone has been being so aggressive in here that it's begun to cross a line and forced me to put this warning, let me make it clear:

Posts going forward need to be VERY on topic. And the overly aggressive, attacking style of borderline baiting posting needs to be dialed down or thread bans may be forth coming
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Let's stay with the discussion, and let's leave personalities alone.

This may help you. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device. Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjoin the city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits the use of functional firearms in the home. The District Court dismissed the suit, but the D. C. Circuit reversed, holding that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms and that the city’s total ban on handguns, as well as its requirement that firearms in the home be kept nonfunctional even when necessary for self-defense, violated that right.

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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

in other words, it did not deal with incorporation because the law in Heller was federal in nature not state. So you just proved I was right.

hint-supreme court rulings almost never make decisions on issues not brought before the court. state action was not at issue in Heller
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

"I am going to watch a movie with my wife." JB #608
The one where the pizza delivery guy ends up in a French maid outfit attached with handcuffs to the chandelier by his ankles? That's one of my favorites too!
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

in other words, it did not deal with incorporation because the law in Heller was federal in nature not state. So you just proved I was right.

hint-supreme court rulings almost never make decisions on issues not brought before the court. state action was not at issue in Heller
The Yale Law article posted above says differently, so that means you agree with me.
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The Yale Law article posted above says differently, so that means you agree with me.

What law was at stake in Heller? Was it based in Washington DC or was it from one of the 50 states?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

The Yale Law article posted above says differently, so that means you agree with me.

YOU are lying-you misread what it said/ claiming Heller (which defined the second amendment as protecting individual rights) nd McDonald incorporated the second amendment is not inaccurate but its a lie for you to claim Heller incorporated it

you just cannot read
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

YOU are lying-you misread what it said/ claiming Heller (which defined the second amendment as protecting individual rights) nd McDonald incorporated the second amendment is not inaccurate but its a lie for you to claim Heller incorporated it you just cannot read
You continue to flame instead of directly answering the OP and comments.

I said that Heller incorporated the 2d. You said it was McDonald. The article says it was both. So by your standards of truth telling . . . yes?
 
Re: Rethinking the 1st & 2nd Ammendments

Do you agree with the law review? Your opinion is fine but not conclusive.

You have yet to answer a single question put to you. Why is that?

I don't agree with your reading of the law review. There is a difference.

Again, What laws are at issue in Heller and what jurisdictions?
 
Back
Top Bottom