M14 Forum


Dangerous Dicta

This is a discussion on Dangerous Dicta within the Gun Rights forums, part of the Gun Forum category; I read this morning an interesting article by Laurence Vance (which may be found in its entirety here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...ngerous-dicta/ ) that discussed recent Supreme Court ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights

14Thanks
  • 7 Post By NukMed
  • 2 Post By GARRARD
  • 2 Post By CAVman
  • 2 Post By Hgunner
  • 1 Post By Snypr18
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old September 12th, 2012, 06:29 AM   #1
Fire Team Leader
 
NukMed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Salt Lake
Posts: 209
Dangerous Dicta

I read this morning an interesting article by Laurence Vance (which may be found in its entirety here: http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012...ngerous-dicta/ ) that discussed recent Supreme Court opinion on the 2nd amendment, and thought I'd share.

It is a little long to post the whole thing, so I will only post here the last part:



"Even if the Second Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia, it still wouldn’t change anything. In that case, all it would do is specifically protect the right to keep and bear arms in an organized militia. It wouldn’t change the natural and moral right of all men to arm themselves for hunting, sport, recreation, or self-defense against aggression by other men or governments.

"But what about the historical exceptions mentioned by Justice Scalia? What about weapons that wouldn’t normally be used in a militia? What about weapons that weren’t envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution? What about dangerous and unusual weapons?

"Yea, what about them?

"Again, the Second 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 Second Amendment doesn’t read:
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by historical infringements.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by longstanding prohibitions.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to dangerous and unusual weapons.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons not normally used in a militia.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that cannot be hand-carried.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to military-type weapons.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to automatic weapons.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons that weren’t envisioned at the time of the writing of the Constitution.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except when it comes to weapons not in common use.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by reasonable regulations.
• The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, except by federal laws that infringe upon that right which are approved by the Supreme Court.

"The Second Amendment has no exceptions.

"This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to fire a gun anywhere one chooses. This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to carry a gun onto anyone’s property without permission. This doesn’t mean that it should be lawful to set up a gun range in one’s backyard. This doesn’t mean it should be lawful to keep a gun in one’s car at work if one’s employer prohibits it.

"But it does mean that from a constitutional, decentralist, or libertarian perspective, the federal government has no authority to ban or regulate handguns, shotguns, rifles, automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, assault rifles, grenades, bazookas, high caliber guns and ammunition, or high capacity magazines.

"The federal government has no authority to institute gun bans, gun-free zones, licensing of gun dealers, gun-owner databases, gun licensing, gun registration, or concealed weapons laws.

"The federal government has no authority to mandate background checks, waiting periods, limits on gun purchases, trigger locks, age restrictions, or any mandate to the States to do these things.

"The federal government has no authority to regulate gun sales, gun purchases, gun shows, gun storage procedures, ammunition, magazine capacities, gun calibers, or gun barrel lengths.

"The federal government has no authority to pass gun-control legislation like the National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Gun Free School Zones Act.

"The federal government has no authority to set up a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms since it has no authority to ban or regulate alcohol, tobacco, or firearms.

"What part of “shall not be infringed” is so hard to understand?"

NukMed is offline  
Remove Ads
Old September 12th, 2012, 06:48 AM   #2
Grunt
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Carlyle, IL
Posts: 111
It doesn't matter though, because people who don't pay attention to it will believe what they've been told by so and so. I can't tell you how many times I've seen it on a question site (Yahoo answers for example) that someone said machine guns were illegal in Wyoming or Texas or all the states entirely! People are literally CLUELESS. Most people think suppressors are also illegal, and think that anything modern shaped is automatically an "assault rifle" and anything with a scope is a "sniper rifle". And they think these things are ILLEGAL!!!

As far as it goes, people should have been nipping gun rights trampling in the bud since long before I was born. But it's too late now, so we have to work on undoing all the damage.

Hell, bet most people also don't know, but most laws restricting carrying a firearm in any way, shape, or fashion (not saying all, just all the different ways; i.e. no loaded ones in IL, no conceal carry, no open carry, blah blah blah.) came about just after the civil war and the emancipation proclamation to prevent recently freed slaves and disgruntled Johnny reb's from walking around packing heat. Don't wanna make those snooty union boys nervous...

Then we had people on our own team fighting against us *cough* Bill Ruger *cough*, who was part of the driving force behind the hi cap mag bans. IMHO, I think he was just being a greedy s.o.b. and would rather sell 3 10-round mags than one 30-round mag.

Then you have the Hughes amendment that NEVER ACTUALLY PASSED the legislature...



Ok, I'll get off the soapbox for now. This stuff just really grinds my gears...

Buffalo444 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 07:11 AM   #3
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 5,332
Hate to disappoint anyone (again), but in the rush of these so-called "hard" cases at the end of the Term with special-interests pushing the Court to re-write American history and, in turn, the Constitution, the Justice's job in writing a deciding opinion is to put something down that he/she can get 4 others to sign onto and get it out the door. Except for knocking down the antis' insistence that the militia clause somehow limits the right of the PEOPLE, Scalia didn't do anything to keep politicians from continuing to peck away at the Second Amendment.

bd111 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 07:54 AM   #4
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The road to Benevolence is twisted...
Posts: 5,055
Scalia is a self-absorbed douche just like the other SCOTUS members.

Disband the SCOTUS and we'd ALL be better off.

I never agreed with the SCOTUS concept (or at least what it has since turned into). A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT should not be OVERSEEING (i.e have the final say) on issues solely generated and having occurred within the respective STATES themselves.

States "rights" have been utterly and thoroughly eroded... outright trampled over... during the past one hundred years (thereabouts).

Ban SCOTUS and save ALL of us from the legal and financial headaches.

As far as defining the Second Amendment... all I can say is this: The Second Amendment was created when a People's "Militia" was the ONLY means a then fledgling U.S. country had to defend itself/exert itself. One can effectively argue (and they have mind you), the Second Amendment should be redefined as the old concept of "Militia" doesn't truly apply today (i.e. we have a standing national military, we have an on-call state military, we have local AND state AND federal law enforcement).

Now... don't get all onery with me... I'm not saying give THEM an inch but I am saying there are "valid" legal grounds for limiting the "rights" bestowed upon us by the Second Amendment. Troubling times ahead. No doubt.

There and Back Again is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 08:02 AM   #5
No social life
 
GARRARD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tampa
Posts: 10,667

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by There and Back Again View Post
Scalia is a self-absorbed douche just like the other SCOTUS members.

Disband the SCOTUS and we'd ALL be better off.

I never agreed with the SCOTUS concept (or at least what it has since turned into). A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT should not be OVERSEEING (i.e have the final say) on issues solely generated and having occurred within the respective STATES themselves.

States "rights" have been utterly and thoroughly eroded... outright trampled over... during the past one hundred years (thereabouts).

Ban SCOTUS and save ALL of us from the legal and financial headaches.
Really, you see no value in rulings like Heller v. DC, Davis v. Alaska, Wilson v. US, Duncan v. Louisiana, Brady v. Maryland, Gideon v. Wainright, US v. Wade, Brown v. Mississippi, etc.? The states don't always get it right, and when they don't, it's often in a big way.

Thanks from CAVman and High Hat
GARRARD is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 09:08 AM   #6
Master Gunner
 
adrbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: DFW
Posts: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by There and Back Again View Post
Scalia is a self-absorbed douche just like the other SCOTUS members.

Disband the SCOTUS and we'd ALL be better off.

I never agreed with the SCOTUS concept (or at least what it has since turned into). A FEDERAL APPEALS COURT should not be OVERSEEING (i.e have the final say) on issues solely generated and having occurred within the respective STATES themselves.

States "rights" have been utterly and thoroughly eroded... outright trampled over... during the past one hundred years (thereabouts).

Ban SCOTUS and save ALL of us from the legal and financial headaches.

As far as defining the Second Amendment... all I can say is this: The Second Amendment was created when a People's "Militia" was the ONLY means a then fledgling U.S. country had to defend itself/exert itself. One can effectively argue (and they have mind you), the Second Amendment should be redefined as the old concept of "Militia" doesn't truly apply today (i.e. we have a standing national military, we have an on-call state military, we have local AND state AND federal law enforcement).

Now... don't get all onery with me... I'm not saying give THEM an inch but I am saying there are "valid" legal grounds for limiting the "rights" bestowed upon us by the Second Amendment. Troubling times ahead. No doubt.
It's certainly open to interpretation, but I believe the the militia wording in the 2nd is not a qualifier, it is simply an addition to the rights enumerated in the 2nd.

I read it like this:
A well regulated militia AND the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

adrbe is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 09:32 AM   #7
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
CAVman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: WYoming
Posts: 9,237

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by There and Back Again View Post

Disband the SCOTUS and we'd ALL be better off.
Wouldn't THAT be abrogating the Constitution ?



There's a reason 'The Founding' Fathers' wanted a system of Checks and Balances of an Independent Judicial Branch and not just a Legislative Branch and an Executive Branch...

CAVman in WYoming

Thanks from GARRARD and High Hat
CAVman is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 10:33 AM   #8
Scout Sniper
 
Surlycmd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 718
Some interesting points have been mentioned in this thread so far. Here are my 2 cents.

I'm a big fan of individual rights including property rights. The parking lot is not included in property rights. It is LAWFUL to keep my firearm locked in my car, my property, in the parking lot.

There is no United States of America anymore. There is only America. The federal gov't has superceded the rights of States for many generations. If you don't believe it, ask yourself why you pay more in federal taxes than state. The feds use extortion to get the states to bow down to them by witholding funds.

It has taken generations and more generations to be where we are now. We will not be able to go back. We can only keep using the system as it exists now to affect changes. Until it no longer works. Then we must take a different tact. What that tact may be remains to be seen.

Surlycmd is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 11:48 AM   #9
Old Salt
 
Snypr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,211
It really doesnt matter what the constitution says in any way, shape, or form, because people who are too timid or lazy to be responsible for their own safety will always look to "de-fang" the rest of us at any cost. Once they become the majority, they will have it their way.

Which really, is only fair. I think majority rule is a very fair system. However, when you have a lazy and uneducated majority, the rule they get reflects it.

Never stop educating those around you and never stop making your voice heard.

Snypr18 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 01:21 PM   #10
Platoon Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: upstate ny
Posts: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snypr18 View Post
It really doesnt matter what the constitution says in any way, shape, or form, because people who are too timid or lazy to be responsible for their own safety will always look to "de-fang" the rest of us at any cost. Once they become the majority, they will have it their way.

Which really, is only fair. I think majority rule is a very fair system. However, when you have a lazy and uneducated majority, the rule they get reflects it.

Never stop educating those around you and never stop making your voice heard.
The problem is that we as a socity is that we dont use a majority vote any more, shure we vote in the president and so on but when it comes to laws geting passed its more about who can scream the loudest be the most pathetic to get the most attention from those in power. We need to stop thinking an the way "we need to have a safe place for children" attitude and think about what we are trying keeping ourselves safe from. most people want to be able to do something to be able to protect themselves and their family especally after a event that wakes people up.

Unfortunatly minority vote has come to be the norm.

spartin is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 01:39 PM   #11
Banned Camp
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: The road to Benevolence is twisted...
Posts: 5,055
Spartin is exactly right.

One only has to look at the "voter turnout" percentages to realize the "voting minority" does in fact guide many aspects of local and national affairs (at the least).

There and Back Again is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 03:11 PM   #12
Lifer
 
Hgunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Middle TN
Posts: 4,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snypr18 View Post
It really doesnt matter what the constitution says in any way, shape, or form, because people who are too timid or lazy to be responsible for their own safety will always look to "de-fang" the rest of us at any cost. Once they become the majority, they will have it their way.

Which really, is only fair. I think majority rule is a very fair system. However, when you have a lazy and uneducated majority, the rule they get reflects it.

Never stop educating those around you and never stop making your voice heard.

Majority rule is Mob Rule and that is why we were set up to be a Representative Republic and not a "democracy".
Believe me one day we shall have it, Mob Rule that is, we are darn close to it now.

Thanks from Clanjf and Patchhound
Hgunner is online now  
Old September 12th, 2012, 03:43 PM   #13
Old Salt
 
Patchhound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,318
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hgunner View Post
Majority rule is Mob Rule and that is why we were set up to be a Representative Republic and not a "democracy".
Believe me one day we shall have it, Mob Rule that is, we are darn close to it now.
I's scary Hgunner. Depressing.

Democracy(majority rule) = 2 Wolves and Sheep Deciding whats for dinner.

(I have another add to this, but I'll hold for now)

The SCOTUS is a necessary check and balance and could be greatly impacted by how this presidential election goes. They don't always get it right either, but congress(elected by us) can check the supreme court:

  • Senate approves federal judges, including Supreme Court justices (Advise and Consent Clause)
  • Impeachment power (House)
  • Trial of impeachments (Senate)
  • Power to initiate constitutional amendments (to undo supreme court decisions)
  • Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
  • Power to set jurisdiction of courts (they can tell a court that they can not hear a case on a certain topic, which includes changing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court)
  • Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court (if the size is drastically increased the President may select all the new justices and change the sway of power)
Not my favorite source, but they summed it up okay:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_C..._Supreme_Court

Being able to maintain a Republic, requires that as a people, we remain educated and don't take on the path of apathy. Its been said on the forum in a lot of different contexts, but it seems we are always "one generation" away.

Patchhound is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 04:55 PM   #14
Old Salt
 
Snypr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by spartin View Post
The problem is that we as a socity is that we dont use a majority vote any more, shure we vote in the president and so on but when it comes to laws geting passed its more about who can scream the loudest be the most pathetic to get the most attention from those in power. We need to stop thinking an the way "we need to have a safe place for children" attitude and think about what we are trying keeping ourselves safe from. most people want to be able to do something to be able to protect themselves and their family especally after a event that wakes people up.

Unfortunatly minority vote has come to be the norm.
THAT is a good point and something I neglected to consider.

Snypr18 is offline  
Old September 12th, 2012, 04:57 PM   #15
Old Salt
 
Snypr18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hgunner View Post
Believe me one day we shall have it, Mob Rule that is, we are darn close to it now.
I take comfort knowing the most prepared mob will come out on top.

Thanks from Clanjf
Snypr18 is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Gun Forum > Gun Rights



Search tags for this page

constitution+free zones

,

free men ask permission

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Too Dangerous To Shoot? Birddog1911 Ammunition 3 May 19th, 2010 09:13 PM
Tack welding barrel to receiver dangerous? Inspector71 Steel and Wood 14 October 4th, 2006 10:55 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List