 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 12, 2007 11:33 am Post subject: DC handgun ban overturned |
 |
|
There was a reference to it over in this thread:
| presidential coquette Fred Thompson wrote: | | The court basically said the Constitution means what it says. |
(regarding the overturning of the ban, using a Second Amendment argument).
Well, now here's more details:
| Quote: | A federal appeals court overturned the District of Columbia's longstanding handgun ban Friday, rejecting the city's argument that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applied only to militias.
In a 2-1 decision, the judges held that the activities protected by the Second Amendment "are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent" on enrollment in a militia. |
So, why is this thread in the Rainbow Room? Well, that would be the *rest* of the story, that they're not telling you:
| Quote: | Tom G. Palmer was one of six plaintiffs who won a 2 to 1 ruling on Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit when it disagreed with a U.S. District judge that the federal Second Amendment protected no individual rights.
Palmer told the court that as "a gay man" he'd "been assaulted on account of his sexual orientation and successfully warded off the assault with a handgun." |
Crip rather sardonically noted,
| Quote: | | The Usual Suspects (our 'allies' on the Left) are flipping out; the Righties are, unsurprisingly, not giving any credit to the gay guy. |
Colour me not surprised.
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, I can't believe that a thread on a handgun ban being overturned has elicited no responses.
Where are all those folks who like to while away a dreary day in convivial chat about the efficacy of firearm regulation vis-a-vis public safety and private rights? Are we to be deprived of the subtle, nuanced discussion, the droll humour and the frequent epiphanies that such threads usually engender on this board?
Alack! Alas! We are the poorer for this dearth of enlightened and illuminating debate.
Wait... maybe all those erudite folks are off with all the extroverts, out having fun without us...
Well, then, I'm sure it's just a matter of time until they return, to amuse, entertain and educate. 
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Don't know if this is real or not, but it sort of sums up the mentality being defended in the backwards world called the US of A.
Warning, even if it's not a real event, it's still pretty damned fucked up (and that's putting it mildly.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4599
Location: all the old familiar places
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Warning, even if it's not a real event, it's still pretty damned fucked up (and that's putting it mildly.) |
I dunno. If it's not real, I don't quite see the problem with it. Babies and children get used all the time in filmed scenes that portray or imply violence.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, in an effort to breathe new life into this thread...
Dancing at arms-length: the Pink Pistols & the NRA
| Quote: | | The Pink Pistols is a group of people that goes against any number of grains. Their motto says it all: 'Armed gays don't get bashed.' The group is a posse of GLBT folks who -- with all the proper permits, mind -- carry concealed guns. Much of the gay community is hostile to the Pistols' ideals, or are at least puzzled by them. But that confusion is mild compared to the utter confusion that the Pistols inspire in the traditionally conservative NRA. |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As I've said many times before, if you live in an war zone then arm yourself ... The USA is a war zone (mostly of their own making with their foolish interpretation of the 2nd amendment.)
In terms of the ruling itself, it's just one more step on the road to self destruction for the wasteland of the free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Utah: queer firearms group gets gun ban lifted
| Quote: | A planned gay and lesbian Queer Prom on April 21 was the unlikely thread that unraveled a little known weapons ban at the Salt Palace Convention Center. Venue staffers agreed to host the Utah Pride Center Inc. event but told event planners that an unwritten weapons-ban policy would be imposed. Planners promoted the event as having a 'zero tolerance policy for ... weapons' and said that venue policies 'allow police officers only to carry concealed weapons.'
Several Second Amendment groups including the gay and lesbian Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah (SSSU) researched the matter and lobbied county-government leaders to obey state laws by reversing the policy. SSSU owner David Nelson told the event planners and venue staffers that state laws prohibited the policy and its enforcement at public-government properties.
[...]
"Venue General Manager Allyson Jackson told me on April 13 that the policy did, in fact, exist, but not as a written contractual statement which she could cite verbatim or by number," Nelson said. "She said that venue law-enforcement officers could detain and question any visitor, and confiscate any weapon which the visitor possessed. She emphasized that this was the venue 'way of operating.'"
Chief Deputy District Attorney Dahnelle Burton-Lee disagreed on April 17 and reversed the venue policy in a published legal opinion.
"Salt Lake County does not have a regulation or policy that regulates firearms or weapons on its public properties beyond the scope of the authority granted by the Utah Legislature," Burton-Lee said. "The county is very cognizant of the Utah Legislature's retention of firearm regulatory authority and the limitations on local governments' ability to inhibit or restrict the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property."
[...]
A similar weapons ban was promoted in 2005 by Utah Pride festival planners who dropped the policy after Second Amendment groups including SSSU lobbied them and Salt Lake City-government leaders that the ban was unenforceable. Since then, only illegal weapons are banned. |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2007 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gay gun enthusiast ejected from Pride
| Quote: | Pro-gun activist David Nelson was ejected from last week's Utah Pride festival by its organisers, security and law-enforcement officers for possessing an unconcealed firearm.
Nelson, who owns the gay group Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah, has filed a complaint with city Police Chief Chris Burbank against Lt. Rusty Isakson for what Nelson described as "grossly and specifically violative of state weapons laws.” In the complaint, Nelson described how he arrived at the festival, purchased an admission ticket and entered the event before he was detained, questioned and ejected.
[…]
Utah state laws prohibit "a local authority” [from enforcing] any ordinance, regulation, rule, or policy pertaining to firearms that in any way inhibits or restricts the possession or use of firearms on either public or private property.” Despite this, Isakson wrote a police report about the matter. Nelson said Isakson told him that he'd send an unsolicited copy of the report to the state Bureau of Criminal Identification for their review, and that "one sure way to lose your permit is to abuse it like this.”
"His implication seemed clear to me: He was intentionally jeopardising my permit," Nelson said. ??"He then asked me 'to leave' the event property. It was the first such request of me by anyone involved in the matter, and I left immediately.”
Nelson's ejection and consequent complaint have received the attention of Second Amendment advocates in the state including those who are lawyers and legislators. They've encouraged him to take his complaint further by pursuing court charges against the city, its police department and others who were allegedly responsible for violating his legal rights. |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's made it to the SCOTUS
| Quote: | The US Supreme Court heard arguments Tuesday in a legal challenge to the District of Columbia's ban on handguns in a major case over the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms."
A Washington resident who wants to keep handguns at home for protection is challenging the 32-year-old ban as a violation of his constitutional rights. A federal appeals court in Washington agreed that the city cannot ban handguns.
The court has not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment in the 216 years since its ratification. The basic issue for the justices is whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia.
Even if the court determines there is an individual right, the justices still will have to decide whether the District's ban can stand and how to evaluate other gun control laws.
[...]
The case drew 68 briefs from outside groups, most opposed to the ban. Among them were Pink Pistols -- a national LGBT gun club -- and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty.
Pink Pistols, which according to its Web site, has 43 chapters nationwide, said that guns should be allowed in homes for self-defense purposes.
[...]
The Supreme Court justices did not say when they expect to rule in the case. |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DTA
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 694
Location: ////
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| any wagers how they will vote? I have my suspicion the hand gun ban will stay overturned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gay Republicans Laud Supreme Court Gun Ruling
| Quote: | Log Cabin Republicans applauded the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling Thursday striking down Washington, DC's 32-year-old ban on hand guns.
The court ruled Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right to keep guns in their homes for self-defense. It was the justices' first major pronouncement on gun control in U.S. history.
The court had not conclusively interpreted the Second Amendment since its ratification in 1791. The amendment reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The basic issue for the justices was whether the amendment protects an individual's right to own guns no matter what, or whether that right is somehow tied to service in a state militia. |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norse of 60
Kokanee Kid
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3711
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's hard to understand how the justices could actually rule that the keeping and bearing of weapons is entirely divorced from involvement in an organized militia. They just struck out the first part of the clause. And these are the same judges that throw hissy fits over providing rights to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (Antonin Scalia, I'm looking at you) because it wasn't intended by the framers of the Constitution. Ass hats.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm happy with it. No surprises there I guess. I've always wondered where people got the idea that alone among the amendments "the People" meant something different from what it meant in every single other amendment....
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So why is it that the "organized militia" part means nothing? If you have to read on thing that is there every time, then you damn well have to read everything that is there, every time. This ruling sets a precedent for simply ignoring parts of the Constitution that American judges find inconvenient. What will be next? Ignoring the part where it says that the Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people to peacefully assemble or that Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion? SCOTUS made this ruling based on ridiculous grammatical nitpicking, well beyond even what lawyers expect.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's simple. It's one example of why they recognized a natural right. The idea was to encourage the citizens to feel that it was their patriotic duty to be armed. This was a country that had just rebelled against the British, and were concerned that the Brits would come back. An armed citizenry capable of defending the country was first and foremost in their minds. It certainly wasn't meant to limit the bearing of arms, rather it was to encourage as many able-bodied males as possible to learn how to fight to defend their newly independent nation.
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 7176
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't seem to me that the wording explicitly states that in order to own a gun, you have to be part of a militia.
It seems, to me anyway, to be saying that it's a good idea to have a militia, and toward that end, the populace should be allowed to own a gun.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0nkyman wrote: | | It's simple. It's one example of why they recognized a natural right. The idea was to encourage the citizens to feel that it was their patriotic duty to be armed. This was a country that had just rebelled against the British, and were concerned that the Brits would come back. An armed citizenry capable of defending the country was first and foremost in their minds. It certainly wasn't meant to limit the bearing of arms, rather it was to encourage as many able-bodied males as possible to learn how to fight to defend their newly independent nation. |
And you really, seriously, think that they felt the only way to encourage people to join to militia was to put a reference to said militia in the Constitution? Seems a bit permanent for what they must have known was a temporary situation.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 16607
Location: Toronto
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sure the good folks in Washington DC agree with that sentiment.
When do individual rights trump the right to safety and security? The New York Times has a forceful editorial to this effect:
| Quote: | Thirty-thousand Americans are killed by guns every year — on the job, walking to school, at the shopping mall. The Supreme Court on Thursday all but ensured that even more Americans will die senselessly with its wrongheaded and dangerous ruling striking down key parts of the District of Columbia’s gun-control law.
In a radical break from 70 years of Supreme Court precedent, Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, declared that the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms for nonmilitary uses, even though the amendment clearly links the right to service in a “militia.” The ruling will give gun-rights advocates a powerful new legal tool to try to strike down gun-control laws across the nation.
This is a decision that will cost innocent lives, cause immeasurable pain and suffering and turn America into a more dangerous country. It will also diminish our standing in the world, sending yet another message that the United States values gun rights over human life.
... In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens was right when he said that the court has now established “a new constitutional right” that creates a “dramatic upheaval in the law.”
... In this month’s case recognizing the habeas corpus rights of the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, Justice Scalia wrote in dissent that the decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed.” Those words apply with far more force to his opinion in this District of Columbia case. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
They said that regulations were fine, but outright bans aren't. The sky is not falling.
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see this as a wonderful decision then ... since outright bans are not ok, but regulations are fine .. and also given that the fourth amendment (privacy) no longer has much force under law, there is nothing to stand in the way of all firearms being registered in the USA.
Either that or every USian will end up being armed, which should obviously put an end to all "violence" (shooting your neighbour for playing the music too loud will no longer be considered violence) in that country.
One more nail in the empires coffin.
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Norse of 60
Kokanee Kid
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3711
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think Larry the Cable Guy has the best interpretation:
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4599
Location: all the old familiar places
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Senor Magoo wrote: | It doesn't seem to me that the wording explicitly states that in order to own a gun, you have to be part of a militia.
It seems, to me anyway, to be saying that it's a good idea to have a militia, and toward that end, the populace should be allowed to own a gun. |
Yep. Imagine an amendment phrased like this...
Political debate being an intrinsic part of democracy, the right to free speech shall not be abridged.
I don't think most people would interpret this as meaning that only political speech was protected. Just that the ultimate reason for protecting all speech is to ensure that we are able to have political debates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But there is zero reason to have such a snippit in a constitution (or at least no reason for it to be in the operative part of the document, it would be just fine in the preamble). It also seems rather strange that it is only in regard to the Second Amendment that we have such an exhortation.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senor Magoo
He's got a big one
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 7176
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps the Founding Fathers needed a better editor.
_________________
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It all depends what the framers were thinking about protecting at the time.
At the time, the "right to be bear arms" was indeed commonly meant in the context of a "militia" ... and it didn't mean that the average citizen should arm themselves in order to defend against "their" rouge government, it was to ensure that citizens armed themselves to be in service of the government against foreign attack ... this was the common context of the day as was put in place by the British, and given that the USA just finished a war of independence against the Brits, it's not a stretch to assume that's what the US framers were also thinking.
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But then again, you never know when that crafty King George might come back to make them subjects of Imperial Britain again.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No Yards, you're full of bullshit on this one. The Americans had just rebelled against their own government. They had been subjects of the British crown. They were perfectly aware that their own government could turn on them. The conflict between the federalists and anti-federalist that brought about the Bill of Rights was based on the fear that the government would devolve into a monarchy. It's no stretch at all to think that the framers of the Bill of Rights were recognizing the right of The People to be able to put the government in it's place.
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | But then again, you never know when that crafty King George might come back to make them subjects of Imperial Britain again. |
1812?
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0nkyman wrote: | | No Yards, you're full of bullshit on this one. The Americans had just rebelled against their own government. They had been subjects of the British crown. They were perfectly aware that their own government could turn on them. The conflict between the federalists and anti-federalist that brought about the Bill of Rights was based on the fear that the government would devolve into a monarchy. It's no stretch at all to think that the framers of the Bill of Rights were recognizing the right of The People to be able to put the government in it's place. |
Yes, they were perfectly aware that the feds could turn on them, that's why they wanted the states to retain the power to defend themselves.
If you follow the history of the various versions of the 2nd amendment from it's first use in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights ...
| Quote: | | That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. |
... up though the various incarnations until the final version was put into the constitution, it's pretty clear that the major "contention" was between the "feds" and the "states", and not the "people" and "any old government".
Some history on the subject
Unless the hard fought compromise that these people went through on this amendment is to be ignored and we're just going to assume that the anti-federalists got 100% of what they wanted; and what they wanted was more that what they actually were demanding, then I don't see how it could be ignored that it was "state power" that was being "protected".
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'll let the majority speak for me in skewering that one.
| Quote: | b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or com-
munity.” 1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference
to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia
is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that
the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to
individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state”
and close variations seem to have been terms of art in
18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free coun-
try’ ” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security
of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see,
e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15,
1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen
& G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other in-
stances of “state” in the Constitution are typically accom-
panied by modifiers making clear that the reference is to
the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any
state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no
state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in
Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did
not have a single meaning in the Constitution.
There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan-
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are
better able to resist tyranny.
|
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, if they refused to look at the history of how the amendment came into being, then I suppose you could fool yourself into believing that "a free state" in this one case meant something other than an actual state.
But of course if you read the amendments leading up to the final version it hardly makes any sense at all that they should be debating whether you have a right to conscientiously object to joining a militia, if the militia is just "you with your squirrelly rifle"!
The penultimate version of the 2nd amendment:
| Quote: | A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
|
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We both have a viewpoint, and I suspect neither of us will change our minds. All I can do is point out that the individual viewpoint was unanimous amongst the supremes. From the dissent by Breyer:
| Quote: | In interpreting and applying this Amendment,
I take as a starting point the following four propositions,
based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I
believe the entire Court subscribes:
(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e.,
one that is separately possessed, and may be separately
enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See,
e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS,
J., dissenting).
(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was
adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation
and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.”
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 178 (1939); see
ante, at 26 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (STEVENS, J.,
dissenting).
(3) The Amendment “must be interpreted and applied
with that end in view.” Miller, supra, at 178.
(4) The right protected by the Second Amendment is not
absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation.
See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–2ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court).
|
Bold is mine.
Please, read the decision and the dissents.
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, of course the right is "individual" .... the question is, is it an individual right to possess a firearm for no particular reason in specific, or is it an individual right to possess a firearm as a well regulated malitia?
I don't believe they the majority made the right decision, but that's the decision they made, and all I can say is thank gawd that it's the USA and no Canada that has made such a foolish ruling.
We shall see if this "freedom" actually leads to "freedom". I seriously doubt it.
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0nkyman wrote: | | TS. wrote: | | But then again, you never know when that crafty King George might come back to make them subjects of Imperial Britain again. |
1812? |
You mean the war that President Jefferson said would be a "mere matter of marching" for the Americans to take over British North America and that the US declared on Great Britain?
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TS. wrote: | | m0nkyman wrote: | | TS. wrote: | | But then again, you never know when that crafty King George might come back to make them subjects of Imperial Britain again. |
1812? |
You mean the war that President Madisson said would be a "mere matter of marching" for the Americans to take over British North America and that the US declared on Great Britain? |
\
I meant more to point out that the antagonism between the two nations lasted longer than a couple of months...
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And my point was that is that the entire amendment was framed in the context of a militia, and that it is meaningless without that context. Given that there is no longer a need for an American militia (since King George isn't coming back to take their land again), the amendment itself is meaningless.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK. Here's a quick question. What was the nature of the militia referred to in the Second Amendment in your opinion?
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TS.
Delicious schadenfreude
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 13143
Location: Toronto, ON
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The militia in the United States in the early years of its independence was highly localized based on state. In the War of 1812 many state militias fought poorly outside their home state, and refused to fight at all outside of US territory. The militias also had relatively lax discipline, since they were an irregular force. The militias were obviously not a standing force, but they were organized in such a way as to be relatively easy to call on. In my view, these militias were roughly equivalent to the National Guard, although the Guard is more organized and regular than a militia, and it shares a uniform with the regular forces. The American militias had were organized independently of the regular army (which at the time of the War of 1812 was quite small), and had their own uniforms. In short, they were an organized force, with some training, that was intended to be organized for defence of the home territories in the event of an invasion., likely by the British, but also possibly by Spain.
_________________
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear." - Thomas Jefferson |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| m0nkyman wrote: | | OK. Here's a quick question. What was the nature of the militia referred to in the Second Amendment in your opinion? |
It hard to say exactly what it refers to as we weren't there, but I think it's safe to say that it didn't refer to the right of every individual to own a firearm so that whenever they felt like their personal freedom was under attack by England, France, the US Federals, the State, or their mayor that they could simply get their flintlock and settle matters "the good old fashion way".
The right was there for individuals to allow them to join an organized group that could be recognized as the legal "government" of that locality (probably a civic government, along the lines of a city or municipality, as we know them today.)
These militia's would have to have some reasonable claim to being a democratic representative of the people it was claiming to protect and the people of which the militia consisted, otherwise it would be nothing but a vigilante group or some version of the KKK.
I doubt even the anti-federalists had in mind that individuals were somehow going to have the power to decide when the villiage/town/city/state was under attack from some democracy stealing outside force.
The federalists wanted the checks and balances of a democratic government to protect the freedoms of the states and municipalities ... the anti-federalists wanted local militias to back up those checks and balances, just in case.
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cco
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 354
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No Yards wrote: | | I think it's safe to say that it didn't refer to the right of every individual to own a firearm so that whenever they felt like their personal freedom was under attack by England, France, the US Federals, the State, or their mayor that they could simply get their flintlock and settle matters "the good old fashion way". |
Well, as far as England and France are concerned, see the Logan Act. As for the mayor, see the McMinn County War. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
voice of the damned
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4599
Location: all the old familiar places
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cco wrote: | | No Yards wrote: | | I think it's safe to say that it didn't refer to the right of every individual to own a firearm so that whenever they felt like their personal freedom was under attack by England, France, the US Federals, the State, or their mayor that they could simply get their flintlock and settle matters "the good old fashion way". |
Well, as far as England and France are concerned, see the Logan Act. As for the mayor, see the McMinn County War. |
Also, see the 1966 platform of the Black Panther Party...
| Quote: | 7. We want an immediate end to police brutality and murder of black people.
We believe we can end police brutality in our black community by organizing black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all black people should arm themselves for self defense.
|
The 1972 platform does not contain the reference to the Second Amendment, but nevertheless reaffirms the right of black people to carry arms.
http://www.stanford.edu/group/blackpanthers/history.shtml |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
abnormal
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 03 Jun 2006
Posts: 353
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wish I could remember where I originally found this - I discovered it on my hard drive while I was cleaning up some old files. Nevertheless, it seems appropriate.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1108
Location: Ottawa
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Without the right to bear arms, racism might still be rampant in the U.S. today.
African Americans might still be the targets of racial profiling and police brutality.
Thank goodness that Supreme Court has shown the way toward racial harmony. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gay SF man sues over gun ban
| Quote: | The National Rifle Association sued the city of San Francisco on Friday to overturn its ban on handguns in public housing, a day after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a handgun ban in the nation's capital.
The legal action follows a similar lawsuit against the city of Chicago over its handgun ban, filed within hours of Thursday's high court ruling.
In San Francisco, the NRA was joined by the Washington state-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and a gun owner who lives in the city's Valencia Gardens housing project.
The gun owner, who is gay, says he keeps the weapon to defend himself from "sexual orientation hate crimes." He was not identified in the complaint because he said he fears retaliation.
Mayor Gavin Newsom said the city will "vigorously fight the NRA" and defended the ban as good for public safety.
"Is there anyone out there who really believes that we need more guns in public housing?" Newsom said. "I can't for the life of me sit back and roll over on this. We will absolutely defend the rights of the housing authority." |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unionist
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 2378
Location: Montréal
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So in the U.S. of A., gays and lesbians can't openly join the armed forces or marry their life partners, but they can pack heat for when the homophobes come...
Live free or die, indeed... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Can gun-toting solve gay-bashing?
| Quote: | "I don't believe arming ourselves is a sustainable response to a subculture of hate towards homosexuality. We are not going to settle our scores as a community by having a shoot-out at the OK Corral," stated Sue Hyde of the Boston office of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to the Southern Voices in 2002.
But Jonathan Rauch, the gay journalist whose headline article in the March 13, 2000, Salon Magazine column, which Pink Pistols borrowed its name from, thinks differently. And he illustrates his point by reminding us of the 1998 killing of Mathew Shepard.
| Quote: | | Shepard was small, helpless and childlike. He never had a chance. This made him a sympathetic figure of a sort that is comfortingly familiar to straight Americans: the weak homosexual. |
The Pink Pistols are considered the lunatic fringe of the LGBTQ community and are often compared to the Black Panthers and Jewish Defense League, all movements in response to hate crimes and discrimination against their groups. And their advocacy for guns is understandable.
Self-defense is a human right. And great spiritual leaders have spoken out on the subject. For example, the Dalai Lama said, " If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." And Jesus stated in Luke 22:36, "Let him who hath no sword, let him sell his tunic and buy one." |
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
No Yards
Glutton for Punishment
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2944
Location: Toronto Ontario
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | " And Jesus stated in Luke 22:36, "Let him who hath no sword, let him sell his tunic and buy one." |
He told them to do this so that there would be no question about fulfilling prophesy ... the next verse being:
| Quote: | | Because I tell you, what has been written about me must be fulfilled: 'He was counted among the criminals.' Indeed, what is written about me must be fulfilled." |
So, in other words, "I want to make sure they think I'm a terrorists, so all you followers, make sure they see me as a leader of armed rebels."
_________________
I follow, but more importantly, respect the Golden Rule. I fully and completely respect your right to be 'done on to' as you would 'do on to' others. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics