Yes, gun ownership is a God-given right

[txradioguy]

A 'negative charter of liberties' is how a statist views the Constitution - enumerating things the government cannot do. Incidentally thats exactly how Obama described it.

That was part of his "fundamentally flawed document" sound bite describing how he views the Constitution.

[Bigun]

Right to vote?

Cannot be found in our Constitution.

[Jazzhead]

All we have to do is reduce the "right" to a Statute to make it easier for Leftists to simply wipe it out with a District Court level decision.

No.  Codifying the individual RKBA does not replace the 2A or Heller.  Rather, it is intended to provide protection against Heller being overturned by a future SCOTUS majority.  Any such codification while Heller remains extant is clearly constitutional,  and any future Court that wants to overturn Heller will be faced not only with the text of the 2A but also the determination of the American people regarding the Constitution's reach as embodied in a law passed by the peoples' elected representatives.

I may be seen by folks on this board as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but that's just paranoia at work.   The Heller decision is vital to extending the 2A to secure the natural, individual right.  It hangs by the thread of the whim of a future SCOTUS.   It is common sense to bolster that ruling by the ringing support of codification.   

[Cyber Liberty]

@Jazzhead  And on schedule, out comes the mental illness card to stamp your opponents.

[thackney]

Nope. Protects the right of self-governance which is inherent. See DoI, and why governments are raised among men.

Government is to protect the rights that are God-given. It conveys no rights at all.

 

[txradioguy]

No.  Codifying the individual RKBA does not replace the 2A or Heller.  Rather, it is intended to provide protection against Heller being overturned by a future SCOTUS majority.  Any such codification while Heller remains extant is clearly constitutional,  and any future Court that wants to overturn Heller will be faced not only with the text of the 2A but also the determination of the American people regarding the Constitution's reach as embodied in a law passed by the peoples' elected representatives.

I may be seen by folks on this board as a wolf in sheep's clothing, but that's just paranoia at work.   The Heller decision is vital to extending the 2A to secure the natural, individual right.  It hangs by the thread of the whim of a future SCOTUS.   It is common sense to bolster that ruling by the ringing support of codification.

Speaking of Heller and your complete bastardization of it and what Scalia was saying...

In its purest application, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute. The right cannot be constrained without also restraining and constraining the sanctity and inviolability of the individual soul. The right of the people to keep and bear arms—the operative clause of the Second Amendment–is not, then, a creation of man. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is simply a codification of, and an acknowledgment of the right preexisting in the individual. It is not a thing that can, lawfully, be defeated through legislation or really destroyed by the State, through government since it was never a thing enacted through legislation or granted or licensed to the individual by grace of the State through the State's Government. To suggest otherwise is mere pretense and artifice. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a right, preexisting in the individual, is not a novel idea. The U.S. Supreme Court made the point in 1879, as Justice Antonin Scalia reminds those jurists who may have forgotten this critically important fact or who may simply have chosen to ignore it or belittle it. Justice Scalia says, “The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.' As we said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L. Ed. 588 (1876), ‘[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed. . . .” Columbia vs. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592; 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797-2798; 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657-658 (2008).

ETA:

The Heller case has cast the right of the people to keep and bear arms in stark relief. Lower Federal District Courts and higher Circuit Courts of Appeal can no longer hide their animus toward the Second Amendment by contending that the import of the Second Amendment has never been adequately resolved by the Courts or by academicians. The Heller case makes abundantly clear, in no uncertain terms, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and, more, a preexisting right, intrinsic to the individual, a right unconnected with one's service in a militia.

[Sighlass]

I just want to drop a good deep read on the subject... and the resulting replies are a good read too (especially if you like to extend the argument into the right to defend one's property).

The framers believed that Americans possessed a natural right of self defense, which no government could abrogate. Good history of the laws (taking up past God giving it to us, which is the true source).

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1216392861.shtml

[EdJames]

I just want to drop a good deep read on the subject... and the resulting replies are a good read too (especially if you like to extend the argument into the right to defend one's property).

The framers believed that Americans possessed a natural right of self defense, which no government could abrogate. Good history of the laws (taking up past God giving it to us, which is the true source).

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1216392861.shtml

Thanks, SL!

That is well worth saving!!

[thackney]

I just want to drop a good deep read on the subject... and the resulting replies are a good read too (especially if you like to extend the argument into the right to defend one's property).

The framers believed that Americans possessed a natural right of self defense, which no government could abrogate. Good history of the laws (taking up past God giving it to us, which is the true source).

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1216392861.shtml

RKBA BKMK

[Jazzhead]

@txradioguy,   I have not "bastardized" Scalia;  indeed I agree with his conclusion that the right to individual self-defense is a natural right which the Constitution requires the federal government to secure.   But the result in Heller remains fragile,  and there is no assurance that a future SCOTUS will retain its interpretation of the meaning of the 2A.   

One of the more remarkable aspects of the 2A is the dearth of Constitutional interpretations of the right.   Indeed, there have been only a handful of significant 2A decisions by the SCOTUS in over 200 years.   Heller was the first significant SCOTUS ruling concerning the 2A in over 60 years.   Since Heller (and the decision shortly thereafter that extended the individual right found as secured by Heller to the states),  there have no significant 2A pronouncements by the SCOTUS.   That's in contrast to dozens if not hundreds of significant SCOTUS rulings regarding the First and Fourth amendments.   

The SCOTUS has historically avoided the 2A like the plague.  And that,  I think,  why it is so critical to codify Heller,  to provide a clear statement by the peoples' elected representatives in support of Heller's extension of the 2A to the individual RKBA.  Another potential benefit of codification is that the law could state the appropriate standard of review for courts to apply when determining whether the right has been infringed.       

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy,   I have not "bastardized" Scalia;  indeed I agree with his conclusion that the right to individual self-defense is a natural right which the Constitution requires the federal government to secure.   But the result in Heller remains fragile,  and there is no assurance that a future SCOTUS will retain its interpretation of the meaning of the 2A.   

You continually misrepresent what Heller did for the Second Amendment...you continue to cherry pick and take completely out of contest what Justice Scalia wrote in the majority opinion in Heller.  You refuse to see the clear black letter law of the Second Amendment.

Yes...you DO bastardize continually the Heller decision.

One of the more remarkable aspects of the 2A is the dearth of Constitutional interpretations of the right.   Indeed, there have been only a handful of significant 2A decisions by the SCOTUS in over 200 years.   Heller was the first significant SCOTUS ruling concerning the 2A in over 60 years.   Since Heller (and the decision shortly thereafter that extended the individual right found as secured by Heller to the states),  there have no significant 2A pronouncements by the SCOTUS.   That's in contrast to dozens if not hundreds of significant SCOTUS rulings regarding the First and Fourth amendments. 

 

There is a dearth of interpretations because the right...guaranteed in the Bill of Rights under the Second Amendment is pretty dame clear to the majority of people with a 6th grade reading level. 

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.

Unless you're a Liberal or just plain obtuse...there's not a whole lot...if any...interpretation that needs to be done.

For 188 years there wasn't a need for any judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.  Not until racist Democrats and the KKK started implementing laws that infringed on a black man's right to own a gun.

The SCOTUS has historically avoided the 2A like the plague.  And that,  I think,  why it is so critical to codify Heller,  to provide a clear statement by the peoples' elected representatives in support of Heller's extension of the 2A to the individual RKBA.  Another potential benefit of codification is that the law could state the appropriate standard of review for courts to apply when determining whether the right has been infringed.     

They haven't historically had cases dealing with the second amendment until the late 19th and into the 20th Century because before then it wasn't an issue and there wasn't any doubt what "shall not infringe" meant and what the 2nd Amendment guaranteed. 

It was pretty clear to everyone what was meant in the Second Amendment until you saw the implementation of Jim Crow laws in the south by racist Democrats in order to prevent Blacks from owning firearms. That gave is United States v. Cruikshank and Presser v. Illinois.  Both established that "the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, not militias, and was not a right to form or belong to a militia, but related to an individual right to bear arms for the good of the United States,"

The justices in Presser further noted that:

We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Activist judges really got going in the 30's with the NFA and again 30 years later when they modified it in 1968.  It's only as Liberalism and Progressivism have taken hold...especially in the big cities that the individual right to keep and bear arms has become a problem.  And it's only a problem that you and your fellow leftists can see appearently.

Heller...as is noted in the majority opinion and as myself and others keep pointing out to you and you continue to ignore...only reaffirms what's written in the Second Amendment.  It doesn't guarantee anything.  It reaffirms.

If you need a dictionary definition of the word "reaffirm" I'll be happy to provide it to you  because you seem a bit confused about its meaning.

The Second Amendment is already codified as I noted above.  It doesn't need any further clarification.  All your scheme seeks to do is take it from being an unalienable right...down to a piece of legislation that can be modified or stricken from our laws as the whim of any politician.

You claim to support Heller...but you talk like the four justices in the dissent.  You as well as the dissenting Justices on the high Court do not accept the facticity of the rights and liberties of man as codified in the Bill of Rights, as natural rights. These Justices—and many other judges that fill the seats on the lower U.S. District Courts and that fill the seats on the higher U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal—do not and will not accept as axiomatic that the Bill of Rights comprises a set of indefeasible rights and liberties.

And you are right there with them.

[libertybele]

Luke 11:21 “When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own mansion, his property is safe

Psalm 144:1 “Praise the Lord, who is my rock. He trains my hands for war and gives my fingers skill for battle

Luke 22:35-37 “Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out to preach the Good News and you did not have money, a traveler’s bag, or an extra pair of sandals, did you need anything?” “No,” they replied. “But now,” he said, “take your money and a traveler’s bag. And if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one! For the time has come for this prophecy about me to be fulfilled: ‘He was counted among the rebels. Yes, everything written about me by the prophets will come true.”

  Thank you.

[Jazzhead]

@txradioguy ,  you don't see the forest for the trees.   I say that Heller interprets the 2A, you say it reaffirms it. Distinction without a difference.   The practical import of the Constitutional right is at the considered whim  of a SCOTUS majority..   And that majority can and will change.  You attach an almost religious importance to the 2A .  But it is flawed language agreed to by flawed men.  The Dems are winning the battle,  because they are using statutes and you won't dainty yourself with the same.

Codify the 2A.   

[Smokin Joe]

I do not dispute that the right of individual self-defense is one of a number of natural rights (the term I prefer to "God-given", but it means the same thing).   The question is whether the Constitution secures that right for you and me.   Hiss and piss and moan all you want,  but it is the Heller decision that reads the 2A as securing that right against government encroachment.  But the Heller decision is fragile, and there is an alternative reading - which the SCOTUS adhered to for most of the 20th century based on its plain language - that the 2A concerns itself with protecting the states' collective right to maintain their militias.   Under that view,  your individual RKBA may be a natural right, but its protection by the Constitution is not secured. 

The individual RKBA is secured by means of a 5-4 SCOTUS ruling, just as are the natural rights to privacy and self-determination.

You would be well advised to check your arrogance and condescension and realize just how fragile your precious right really is.

Let's quit pissing around, here.

The individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is secured by the deterrent presented to government by tens of millions who are armed, and ultimately nothing else save the Grace of the God who granted it.
That is just as the Founders intended, as they discussed, and the government doesn't grant Rights, it only infringes on them.
The 2nd is there to limit the Government, not the People, and properly interpreted would void virtually all legislation regarding the limitations on personal and private arms owned by people who had not committed a serious crime.
It is only since the machinations of Government have encroached so far, on peaceful people who have turned to the courts for relief before reaching for the Fourth Box, that any decision by the SCOTUS was considered necessary at all.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy ,  you don't see the forest for the trees.   I say that Heller interprets the 2A, you say it reaffirms it. Distinction without a difference.   The practical import of the Constitutional right is at the considered whim  of a SCOTUS majority..   And that majority can and will change.  You attach an almost religious importance to the 2A .  But it is flawed language agreed to by flawed men.  The Dems are winning the battle,  because they are using statutes and you won't dainty yourself with the same.

No it's not a distinction without a difference.  They are two distinct views on Heller.  Yours just happens to be factually and historically wrong.

Flawed language and flawed men?  That's very Obama-ish of you.  You're showing your true Progressive roots more and more every day.

You can delude yourself into thinking Dems are winning on the 2A issue...but if that were the case..every single state would have the gun laws of New York and California...yet they don't.

Why is that?

Codify the 2A.   

It already is...in the Bill of Rights.

[txradioguy]

Let's quit pissing around, here.

The individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is secured by the deterrent presented to government by tens of millions who are armed, and ultimately nothing else save the Grace of the God who granted it.
That is just as the Founders intended, as they discussed, and the government doesn't grant Rights, it only infringes on them.
The 2nd is there to limit the Government, not the People, and properly interpreted would void virtually all legislation regarding the limitations on personal and private arms owned by people who had not committed a serious crime.
It is only since the machinations of Government have encroached so far, on peaceful people who have turned to the courts for relief before reaching for the Fourth Box, that any decision by the SCOTUS was considered necessary at all.

QFT

[verga]

Let's quit pissing around, here.

The individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms is secured by the deterrent presented to government by tens of millions who are armed, and ultimately nothing else save the Grace of the God who granted it.
That is just as the Founders intended, as they discussed, and the government doesn't grant Rights, it only infringes on them.
The 2nd is there to limit the Government, not the People, and properly interpreted would void virtually all legislation regarding the limitations on personal and private arms owned by people who had not committed a serious crime.
It is only since the machinations of Government have encroached so far, on peaceful people who have turned to the courts for relief before reaching for the Fourth Box, that any decision by the SCOTUS was considered necessary at all.

Until liberals understand this we will keep having these debates. I wish they would read the 1st amendment this tightly.

[Bigun]

QFT

And it has been that way since day one!