Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[INVAR]

I agree with your analysis here, but I don't quite understand the bolded.  "We" (and by that I mean the Republican Party) due posses a majority in Congress (albeit a tiny one in the Senate), but that is not nearly enough for the passage of a revised Second Amendment that more explicitly protects individual rights.  And passage of the legislation to codify Heller could be reversed just as easily as we passed it the very next time the Democrats control the political branches.  So a legislative "solution" really is just a temporary band-aid at best.

Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.

The only effort I will support is one that simply directs the government: 'hands off - don't touch, you have no authority to meddle or otherwise regulate a Right' in any manner, shape or form.  The people retain the right to self defense against any and all threats to liberty by any arms by which they see fit to supply themselves.'

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.

Well, I'm sure your vehement opposition -- as opposed to just the ordinary opposition of the rest of us mortals -- will surely carry the day.

Our natural rights don't come from parchment, but our legal ones do.  And since I don't think the Creator is going to intervene personally to ensure that you or I aren't required to surrender our weapons, the legal stuff actually matters.  Whether or not we choose to comply.

[the_doc]

And, we have decided that women are people too.

Oh, say it ain't so!

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 finished processing the first bach of "Fire Cider" over the weekend. It bites going down.

@verga

YEP :)
Now you have to roughly calculate your shots to estimate when you need to start your next pot... Not that you need to - I don't drink it year round - you've prolly enough to top off the spring flu season, and can leave off for the summer, so really just an exercise...

But come harvest, you'll need to start cooking another pot, and know your yield, to know when to start the next... it varies some, and you want enough.

Math is hard. 

[the_doc]

Our Rights do not come from the Parchment, and I will vehemently oppose any attempts made to ascribe them to the province of men and parchment.

The only effort I will support is one that simply directs the government: 'hands off - don't touch, you have no authority to meddle or otherwise regulate a Right' in any manner, shape or form.  The people retain the right to self defense against any and all threats to liberty by any arms by which they see fit to supply themselves.'

Although the Declaration of Independence is similar in some respects to the Magna Carta, our Founders did not cite it in the Declaration as a document that legally bound the Crown in their miserable case.  The Founders were more concerned about unalienable rights than about legal rights. 

They would not have cared to bicker with the Crown about the legality of their stand against gun-grabbling British troops at Lexington and Concord.  So, if the Courts of our day eventually authorize gun confiscation, we still have the right to oppose the gun grabbers with those very guns, do we not?
\ 
Jefferson would say That's an idiotic question.  Of course you do.  Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?  Haven't you figured out why we bothered to codify our gun rights in the Constitution?  It was to reassert a right that naturally already exists.  It was to remind would-be murderers/tyrants that the United States will not tolerate incursions against our lives and liberty and therefore will not tolerate "misinterpretations" of this matter.  (For that matter, I haven't you noticed the episode that triggered our War of Independence?)   

There is no room for disagreement.  A supposedly learned, reasonable SCOTUS Justice who misreads the 2nd Amendment is ideologically corrupt, is anti-American.  Voting against the utterly plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment, demonstrated over and over on this thread, is not merely a matter of "We'll just have to agree to disagree."  Voting against a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment is grounds for impeachment.  FAST.

This is why our TBR stalwarts are throwing flames at members who do seem to endorse private ownership of firearms but who still think the 2nd Amendment is not already clear. 

[Jazzhead]

Actually Heller reinforces what is clearly written in the 2A and approved as part of the Bill of Rights.

Funny how you keep saying that there is no correlation between the natural right of self defense and the 2A and ignore some very important parts of the majority opinion that show you're premise is patently false.

You miss my point.   I agree with Heller.  I support Heller.   But the Court's minority view - that the 2A has nothing to do with protecting the individual RKBA outside the militia context - remains potent because a reversal of Heller becomes a likely reality once the Dems control the Presidency and the Congress.   

What I am suggesting is that we do something about it,  and take steps to keep Heller from becoming a political football like Roe v. Wade has been for 40 years.   Are you one who votes on the basis of appointing judges who will overturn the right to abortion?   Well, congratulations, you're no different than millions who will be urged to vote Dem in 2020 in order to break the back of the 2A. 

Court decisions tend to lack practical legitimacy when they do not have the support of the people.  Codifying Heller will bestow that legitimacy, and make it that much harder for a future SCOTUS composed of Dem appointees from adopting the views of Justices Stevens and Breyer.

I see what is coming, folks.     

[INVAR]

Well, I'm sure your vehement opposition -- as opposed to just the ordinary opposition of the rest of us mortals -- will surely carry the day.

Funny.  I get chastised for the offense of using the term 'we' when describing courses of action in opposition to these despotic schemes being suggested, and ridiculed for ascribing actionable predicates to myself.

I prefer to believe that the vehement opposition to any attempt made to make our rights the province of men is a 'we', but I concede that many do not have the stomach to be included in the supposition, therefore the 'I'.

[Jazzhead]

Voting against the utterly plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment, demonstrated over and over on this thread, is not merely a matter of "We'll just have to agree to disagree."  Voting against a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment is grounds for impeachment.  FAST.

This is why our TBR stalwarts are throwing flames at members who do seem to endorse private ownership of firearms but who still think the 2nd Amendment is not already clear.

Utterly plain meaning?  Nothing could be further from the truth.   The 2A will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of Justices willing to do so.   Scalia went out on a limb to declare the militia language to be merely prefatory.   But that ignores centuries of statutory construction - CONSERVATIVE statutory construction, just ask Justice Thomas - that says you do simply ignore the plain language of the statute.   

Scalia did not exercise "strict constructionism" in Heller.   He found the individual RKBA based on his interpretation of a "living Constitution" no different than what Justice Blackmun did before him.

Scalia is correct, but not necessarily because the language of the 2A says so.  He is correct because the Constitution protects our natural rights whether or not specifically enumerated in the document.   But because he based his ruling on the supposed authority of the 2A,  protection of the individual RKBA hangs by the thinnest of threads.   The 2A contains all the language necessary for a liberal Court to declare that it has nothing to do with the individual right.

It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.       

[Cyber Liberty]

I see what is coming, folks.   

I would fully expect the driver of the bus to see what's coming.

[edpc]

I would fully expect the driver of the bus to see what's coming.

Keep it above 50 mph.

[INVAR]

It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.       

No it is not imperative.  It's a trap you're setting.

Doing so sets a precedent for Congress to ascribed itself the power to legislate Rights into and out of existence at it's own discretion.

Just as the courts have been handed that power by people like you.

No.

[thackney]

It is therefore imperative on Congress to place its stamp of authority on Heller.       

Congress does not have the authority to modify any part of the constitution including the amendments.  You know this; why pretend our slim majority makes a difference compared to what is required?

[Elderberry]

HOW SOME STATES DID NOT LEGALLY
RATIFY THE 16TH AMENDMENT

Bill Benson's findings, published in "The Law That Never Was," make a convincing case that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified and that Secretary of State Philander Knox was not merely in error, but committed fraud when he declared it ratified in February 1913. What follows is a summary of some of the major findings for many of the states, showing that their ratifications were not legal and should not have been counted.

https://www.givemeliberty.org/features/taxes/notratified.htm

[roamer_1]

Utterly plain meaning?  Nothing could be further from the truth.   The 2A will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of Justices willing to do so.   

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of justices willing to do so, as they have already proven - Constitution be damned. Congress be damned.

The only thing that stops that is a Congress jealous of its powers. Which, it isn't.

[Jazzhead]

Congress does not have the authority to modify any part of the constitution including the amendments.  You know this; why pretend our slim majority makes a difference compared to what is required?

And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable,  @thackney.   Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck,  the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.   

But at a minimum,  a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected,  and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.   

[thackney]

And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable,  @thackney.   Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck,  the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.   

But at a minimum,  a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected,  and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.   

Okay, thanks for clarifying.  I misunderstood your intent.

But I don't see how a Law passed by Congress would in anyway inhibit a a SCOTUS intent on taking that right of self-defense away.  And it seems strengthen the argument that without the law, or when it is overturned, we don't have an inalienable right of self defense.

[INVAR]

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G will be eviscerated as soon as there is a majority of justices willing to do so, as they have already proven - Constitution be damned. Congress be damned.

The only thing that stops that is a Congress jealous of its powers. Which, it isn't.

Why should it be?  It has over the decades surrendered it's responsibility to the Courts so its members would not have to face the wrath of their constituents.  Keeps them in office for a career.  The justices on the court do not give a damn because they are unaccountable and are on the bench for life. So if they have an ideological agenda to pursue - they can do so with impunity - while Congress dodges it's duties and hands it off to the judiciary.  Symbiotic relationship that furthers the political agenda.

...a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected,  and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.   

Congress has no authority to legislate Rights into or out of existence.  Neither has it the power to limit how SCOTUS looks at cases brought before it.

You are laying a trap by creating a hoped-for precedent of granting Congress the power to create inalienable rights,  and to regulate and abolish them at it's own discretion.

No.

[Bigun]

Why should it be?  It has over the decades surrendered it's responsibility to the Courts so its members would not have to face the wrath of their constituents.  Keeps them in office for a career.  The justices on the court do not give a damn because they are unaccountable and are on the bench for life. So if they have an ideological agenda to pursue - they can do so with impunity - while Congress dodges it's duties and hands it off to the judiciary.  Symbiotic relationship that furthers the political agenda.

Congress has no authority to legislate Rights into or out of existence.  Neither has it the power to limit how SCOTUS looks at cases brought before it.

You are laying a trap by creating a hoped-for precedent of granting Congress the power to create inalienable rights,  and to regulate and abolish them at it's own discretion.

No.

@INVAR

Perhaps you would care to explain the meaning of the highlighted text I excerpted from Article III below then.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

[verga]

@verga

YEP :)
Now you have to roughly calculate your shots to estimate when you need to start your next pot... Not that you need to - I don't drink it year round - you've prolly enough to top off the spring flu season, and can leave off for the summer, so really just an exercise...

But come harvest, you'll need to start cooking another pot, and know your yield, to know when to start the next... it varies some, and you want enough.

Math is hard. 

@roamer_1 I am also using it to help with the Diabetes. Since I began taking it. my A1C went from a 7.2 down to a 6.9. I am expecting a further drop with my next checkup.

[INVAR]

@INVAR

Perhaps you would care to explain the meaning of the highlighted text I excerpted from Article III below then.

I should have been specific in stating that Congress has no power to tell SCOTUS how it must rule in cases brought before it.  Otherwise Congress would make itself the arbitrary power in the judiciary.

But Congress is not going to limit the court as it has the ability to do in matters of jurisdiction - because it defers TO the court for matters of absolving itself of responsibility for oversteps and breaches of Constitutionality.

[Bigun]

I should have been specific in stating that Congress has no power to tell SCOTUS how it must rule in cases brought before it.  Otherwise Congress would make itself the arbitrary power in the judiciary.

But Congress is not going to limit the court as it has the ability to do in matters of jurisdiction - because it defers TO the court for matters of absolving itself of responsibility for oversteps and breaches of Constitutionality.

@INVAR

Which is exactly 180 degrees removed from what the founders intended!

[txradioguy]

You miss my point.   I agree with Heller.  I support Heller.   But the Court's minority view - that the 2A has nothing to do with protecting the individual RKBA outside the militia context - remains potent because a reversal of Heller becomes a likely reality once the Dems control the Presidency and the Congress.

The minority is just that.  The minority.  The dissenting opinion written by the people who drew the short end of the straw.

It's really kinda amazing to see you place such importance on the dissent on things you disagree with...like gun ownership.  But you care not one whit about the dissent in things like Roe v. Wade or what Justice Scalia said in the dissent in Lawrence v. Texas when it's one of your pet Liberal causes.

But then again...that's par for the course for a Liberal.

What I am suggesting is that we do something about it,  and take steps to keep Heller from becoming a political football like Roe v. Wade has been for 40 years

You're arguing for a fix something that isn't an issue or a problem.  There have been far more Liberal courts that haven't overturned the 2A...even in the wake of the MLK and RFK assassinations the Warren Court NEVER considered what you're advocating for...and they'd have had a much better chance back then.

Roe has been a political football because new "rights" were created out of whole cloth where no right existed before.  THAT is why it still a political football today.

In the case of the 2nd Amendment no new right has been created whether it's in Heller or any other lower court decision on gun ownership.

What has been reaffirmed by the MAJORITY decision...which is what you SHOULD focus on...is that the right to keep and bear arms AND the right to self defense are inexorably linked together and can not be separated.

Shall not be infringed.  It's really that east and that clear and the Heller decision backs up that simple wording in the Bill of Rights.

Are you one who votes on the basis of appointing judges who will overturn the right to abortion?   Well, congratulations, you're no different than millions who will be urged to vote Dem in 2020 in order to break the back of the 2A. 

Nope I vote for judges...politicians in general ...hat will uphold the originalism text of the Constitution...not try to turn it into some "living document" in order to get around the restrictions it places on government to encroach on the rights of the citizens.

Court decisions tend to lack practical legitimacy when they do not have the support of the people.

 

And yet two of your pet court decisions don't have the support of the people...the MAJORITY of the people and yet you hold them up as black letter law that should never be challenged.

Codifying Heller will bestow that legitimacy, and make it that much harder for a future SCOTUS composed of Dem appointees from adopting the views of Justices Stevens and Breyer.

That's legalistic bullsh*t and you know it.  Nothing could more plain and easy to understand than what is written in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States.

Your need to "codify" the Heller decision just opens it up to more political interpretation and the ability at some point for gun grabbers like yourself as a back to eventual gun confiscation.

Again you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist and doesn't need fixing...certainly not by the Imperial Federal Government.

I see what is coming, folks.   

What you see is a vast majority of people not bowing to the government and refusing all of the registration...insurance and "codifying" schemes you're pimping on here.  They will simply not comply...myself and my family included.

And for someone who wants this country ruled by judicial fiat and the threat of legal action for non compliance...the thought of several million people who exercise their 2nd Amendment rights on a daily basis refusing to become a drone of the state scares the living crap out of you.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1 I am also using it to help with the Diabetes. Since I began taking it. my A1C went from a 7.2 down to a 6.9. I am expecting a further drop with my next checkup.

Well, I'll be @verga ...
That's excellent... Let me know if that comes true... Really. It would be good to know that it actually effects diabetes... or maybe even cures. 

[Smokin Joe]

And amendment to the Constitution is clearly preferable,  @thackney.   Except it's one of the hardest tasks to accomplish - heck,  the most strident gun activists on this board don't want to attempt it.   

But at a minimum,  a law passed by Congress that codifies the holding in Heller that the individual RKBA is Constitutionally protected,  and describes the level of scrutiny to be applied in addressing regulation of the right, would go a long way towards reining in the possibility of a future Dem-dominated SCOTUS from holding the 2A doesn't protect the individual right.   

The individual RKBA is already protected, by the 2nd Amendment.

It is a "...RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE...". That's pretty damn individual. That the Right to Keep and Bear Arms would somehow exclude their use in the practice of the natural right of self-defense is nonsensical, at best. Only the most ridiculous interpretations can find that a "right of the People" is anything but an individual Right as it is in other amendments which speak of an individual Right. That phrase doesn't become void in this one and not in that one, which is what the 'living Constitution' people try to assert.

It's so plain, people who don't 'get it' don't want to. They have another axe to grind (wait, axes are 'arms', too, if used thus).

Keep in mind, in that document limiting the power of the Federal Government, the people would indeed be protecting themselves, individually and as a community against the depredations of a standing Federal army either gone rogue or acting illegally to oppress. Defense against totalitarianism is self-defense, at its smallest unit. That is the most extreme instance of self-defense, but it is self-defense, regardless of the outcome.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I believe you are mixing up the claim that knives kill more than rifles, not guns.  Even that claim is difficult due to the number of death by Firearms not identified.



http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/19/knives-gun-control-fbi-statistics/

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

You are correct.  It is rifles which are what is under attack by the registration livs and the 4x statistics apply to that.