In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
2nd amendment case.
mouse
Member Posts: 3,624
http://lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/DCvHellerAmicus.pdf
Brief on court case/ gunowners of America.
Brief on court case/ gunowners of America.
Comments
2nd Amendment bars regulation of people's ability to bear arms.
By Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson
Compelled to take up arms to regain their liberties as Englishmen, America's Founders knew that even the constitutional republic they had established could threaten the freedoms for which they had fought. In the First Amendment, they established a first line of defense - the freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.
Knowing that words and parchment barriers alone would prove inadequate to restrain those elected as servants from becoming tyrants, they added the Second Amendment to secure "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" - not to protect deer hunters and skeet shooters, but to guarantee to themselves and their posterity the blessings of "a free State."
Their foremost concern was the precipitating events of the American Revolution, wherein British troops in Massachusetts and Virginia seized American muskets, cannon and powder - actions the Declaration of Independence calls "a design to reduce (the colonists) under absolute Despotism."
Entrusting the nation's sovereignty to the people, the amendment breaks the government's military monopoly, guaranteeing to the people such firearms as would be necessary to defend against the sort of government abuse of their inalienable rights the British had committed.
Thus, the amendment's "well regulated Militia" encompasses all citizens who constitute the polity of the nation with the right to form their own government. The amendment's "keep and bear Arms" secures the right to possess firearms such as fully-automatic rifles, which are both the "lineal descendant(s) of . founding-era weapon(s)" (applying a 2007 court of appeals' test), and "ordinary military equipment" (applying a 1939 Supreme Court standard).
No government deprives its citizens of rights without asserting that its actions are "reasonable" and "necessary" for high-sounding reasons such as "public safety." A right that can be regulated is no right at all, only a temporary privilege dependent upon the good will of the very government officials that such right is designed to constrain.
Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson are attorneys for Gun Owners of America, which filed a brief in the Second Amendment case the Supreme Court heard Tuesday.
I gave some thought to trying and drum up a mass mailing of letters, ect., to the Court..pointing out Original Intent.
Figured it to be a waste of time.
There are 4 million NRA members, the DTknowles, the TRfoxes of the world..that would merely write in about how the government has the right and duty to regulate firearms.
Take "militia", for example. They hang their hat on definitions from 200+ years ago, when, as a matter of fact, "militia" was clearly defined by Congress in 1903:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Whatever "militia" may have meant in US law prior to 1903, it was changed/redefined then.
All the howling and whining in the world does not change the fact. Burying your head in the sand does not change the fact.
One of these fine days, you and the Beast are going to make it impossible to obey some new law you manufacture out of whole cloth..based in the perverted, twisted bloated remains of the Constitution you have made it...and then you will have your chance to make your Utopia.
Pretty obvious you hate the one the Founders made.
The problem is that organizations like GOoA read and interpret the Constitution and laws in the way that pleases them, and more importantly, they totally ignore all laws which they happen not to like.
Take "militia", for example. They hang their hat on definitions from 200+ years ago, when, as a matter of fact, "militia" was clearly defined by Congress in 1903:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
Whatever "militia" may have meant in US law prior to 1903, it was changed/redefined then.
All the howling and whining in the world does not change the fact. Burying your head in the sand does not change the fact.
triple223tap:
The law of 1903, while important in the organizing of national guard is not at all relevant in the case of the 2nd amendment. At least to a strict constructionist, the definition of a militia in the amendment is based on what the founders thought it to be. If you want to argue about what a militia is, you need to argue about what they meant.
Even the act that you referenced was for the"re-organization" of the militias after the Spanish American War. Here is a quote from your referenced article: The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Dick Act, was the result of a program of reform and reorganization in the military establishment initiated by United States Secretary of War Elihu Root following the Spanish-American War of 1898 after the war demonstrated weaknesses in the militia, and in the entire United States military.
Oh...the mental problem ? That has to do with his blind obedience to authority.
Back a couple hundred ++ years ago, he cheerfully would have been shooting Colonists and drinking toasts to the King.
You just gotta know your enemy.
You're a real bizarro, highball. I don't make laws; the people you elect make laws. Don't like those laws? Stop electing them.
Originally posted by triple223tap
Almost. I'll admit that I will not vote for any republican. If Obama's the dem, I'll vote for him.
Consider that we have a rape epidemic so large that the police cannot even hope to address it, so Congress, in a bout of simple RTARDness, decide to make rape legal, providing that the rapist uses a condom and there is no physical violence. Well, that's one way to make rape a non-existent problem, but it is also a law I would not follow if some guy decided he wanted to rape my daughters or my wife, or any other member of my family, you can bet your rear end on that. On that day, this guy would be the recipient of the bloodiest, most gruesome third degree murder in the history of third degree murders, I don't give a damn what the law says on it.
The GOA acknowledges that all laws that run in contradiction to the 2nd Amendment are, for the most part, illegally enforced and unconstitutional, and have no respect for unjust laws. That sounds pretty reasonable to me. I am betting they would not take to the theoretical rape law I outlined above, either, and for the exact same reason.
The shot heard round the world, 19 APR 1775 was fired, not because of taxation without representation, but because of a confiscation of arms decree sent from the crown, itself, and had they not disobeyed a few laws then, we would all be speaking with an English accent, and not even know what a firearm was.... I find any redefinition of their intent to be counter-productive as well. Only idiots allow themselves to be defenseless. No one ever tries to disarm you for your own good. Always is it so they can exert their will on you without you defying them. They have something in mind for you they know they could never get away with if you were armed.
Your rape hypothesis is so outrageous that it is simply stupid. Anyone and everyone always has the right to defend themselves against assault, everywhere in the world, in every country.
You're being silly and just plain stupid.
You and GOoA can screech and piss and moan about what YOU believe is unconstitutional, but so long as the majority, our lawmakers and courts believe otherwise, you are, by definition, just plain wrong.
Now you can claim legal and historical knowledge superior to the Congress and the Supreme Court, but that's all it is - a loud-mouthed claim. You can claim to be a better golfer than Tiger Woods, a better mathemetician than Einstein, a better boxer than Ali too.
At least you're good for a laugh.
gunphreak-
You and GOoA can screech and piss and moan about what YOU believe is unconstitutional, but so long as the majority, our lawmakers and courts believe otherwise, you are, by definition, just plain wrong.
Excellent point Triple223tap!
Following this well thought out logical progression, I guess those Germans in the 1930s who opposed the NAZI controlled majority, lawmakers and courts actions stripping the Jewish population of rights and property were, by your definition, JUST PLAIN WRONG because the majority, lawmakers and courts believed otherwise.
This now clears up so many ethical questions for me.
Just like those Americans in the 1940's who opposed the detainment and imprisonment of Japanese-Americans for the sole reason of being of ASIAN descent were, by your definition, JUST PLAIN WRONG because the majority, lawmakers and courts believed otherwise.
The muddy waters are now clear.
Just like the colonist in the 1760s & 1770s who opposed the British Crown's right to tax them without representation, house British soldiers in private citizen homes and take the arms of those citizen's deemed "dangerous" by a British Legal System were, by your definition, JUST PLAIN WRONG because the majority, lawmakers and courts believed otherwise.
Brilliant! Absolutely Brilliant!
My eyes are now open.
The American Citizen of the 2000s who opposses the view of the Executive Branch, Legislative Branch and Judicial Branch as well as laws that have effectively eliminated a natural "right" and made it into a "privilege" despite historical evidence in addition to a collection of words, phrases and clauses known as the "U.S. Constitution" are, by your definition, JUST PLAIN WRONG because the majority (i.e. the laws of record), lawmakers (i.e. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, & The President of the United States) and the Judicial Branch (Federal Courts and the Supreme Court of the United States) have conveniently ignored the spirit behind the creation of the United States of America and believe otherwise.
Yep. You have risen above all others and helped shine a light upon a shadow filled road.
SARCASM MODE OFF!
Wrong is wrong. The majority, courts and lawmakers do not change wrong into right. Nor do they make right into wrong.
It was wrong to allow one group of people to enslave another for generations. It was wrong to consider a human being on par with livestock.
It was wrong to imprison Jewish people and take their life for the sole purpose of a holocaust. 1 Billion people could agree with the NAZI cause, and the cause would still be wrong.
1 Million Evil People could control the majority, lawmakers and courts in a country populated by 10 Good People and their actions would still be evil.
Xerico
Try reading what I said again. I did not say good or bad, evil or benign.
I spoke to the issue of constitutional vs unconstitutional.
Who determines what is constitutional? The courts. Not some gunphreak GOoA screecher.
It is possible for something to be constitutional and at the same time be bad or evil or stupid.
In your haste to be a wise-assed satirist, you missed the whole point.
As usual...you are wrong.
The Court only decides in the interim ..the period between Freedom and Freedom.
We the people will decide one of these days what is Tyranny and what is Constitutional ..and your shrill cries of outrage will serve you not at all.
Xerico missed no point of yours at all ..for your point is merely slavish devotion to authority.
As you stated ..in your world, the Constitution can be evil.
Your refusal to understand that evil MEN interpret that document for their own ends is very revealing of your worth as a person.
Yadda...yadda...yadda. One of these days? Why not today? Why not yesterday? What are you waiting for?
Who are you, Jackie Gleason?
One of these days, Alice....One of these days. LMAO!
You'll do WHAT? WHAT? That's a laugh. Naw, you'll sit at your keyboard and whine...and that's all you'll ever do. Whine...whine...whine. If you aren't already a member of GOoA, you should join. You'll fit right in...whine...whine...whine.
Make book on one thing.
No mealy-mouthed twerp will 'shame' me into doing something stupid..just because you are.
But you're right about one thing; you'll never be shamed. You have no shame.
Too bad. [V]