'Really hot' gun hearing to decide ban's fate

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080314/METRO/266988623/1004

By Adrienne Washington
March 14, 2008
John Payton, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's president and director-counsel, says "it will be really hot" Tuesday at the U.S. Supreme Court.


So hot, in fact, that he is not certain he will get a seat when crowds line up to hear oral arguments in the gun-control case, District of Columbia v. Dick Heller.


So hot, that court administrators already have agreed to release audiotapes of the seminal Second Amendment case, practically the moment the justices adjourn after what promises to be a lively debate about what the Founding Fathers were thinking more than 200 years ago with respect to the rights of individual Americans to possess firearms.


This will be the first time the high court has reviewed this amendment in 68 years.


"The government did not take up the first [gun control] case since 1939 to issue a ruling that only applies to D.C., but for much more broader effect," Mr. Payton said.


That the Heller hearing, which will determine the legality of the District's 1976 handgun ban, will be hot is about the only thing Mr. Payton and two other panelists agreed upon during yesterday's American Constitutional Society for Law and Policy forum at the National Press Club.


In what could only be described as a "Hardball" preview to Tuesday's showdown before the Supreme Court, Mr. Peyton, Roger Williams University law professor Carl T. Bogus and David B. Kopel, research director of the Independence Institute, voiced their respective legal opinions.


It was as if the dais were a judicial bench in a moot court before a jury filled mainly with hastily scribbling reporters and supporters on both sides of the gun debate.
The panelists couldn't even agree on what the word "tyranny" means, or whether it should apply to government regulations on the Second Amendment at any level.


At one point, moderator Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate who writes "Supreme Court Dispatches," jokingly warned Mr. Bogus that she would allow him to answer a question as long as he didn't use the word tyranny.


"That seems to get everybody excited," she said.


Ms. Lithwick's caution and the dispute over the word tyranny might appear petty to those uninitiated in constitutional law.


But the nitpicking illustrates just how contentious the battle about gun rights is and how both sides are invested in the outcome of this rare test case.


One questioner asked the panelists to "take off your polemic hats for a second and put on your analytical hats" to address whether the Second Amendment guarantees individual or collective, militia-related rights to bear arms.


"The individual rights argument is a creative artifact of the 20th century," said Mr. Kopel, whose Independence Institute is a nonpartisan, nonprofit public research group based in Colorado.


Mr. Bogus posited if individuals have the right to bear arms, that could mean they can own machine guns and weapons of mass destruction. He also presented statistics showing that there were fewer homicides and suicides in the District during the nine years after the ban was enacted, compared to the nine years before its enactment.


If the District's handgun ban is repealed, how would that affect similar gun control measures in Chicago and other jurisdictions? How will the federal ruling affect the states?


"These are arguments that should be made before legislatures," Mr. Payton said.


Truth be told, few D.C. residents care about the interpretive differences between conservative legal scholars, who are strict "originalists," versus liberal legal scholars, who believe the Constitution is an evolving "living document."


D.C. residents just want safer streets, which is what their elected leaders will contend they provided by enacting a handgun ban to stem the flow of firearms.


Whether the ban produced the desired effect depends on where one stands or sits, if this forum is an indicator. No one went so far as to predict an outcome, but a split among the justices that will likely draw out the litigation was the odds-on favorite.


City lawyers better be prepared to present some style as well as substance on Tuesday.


If passion alone tips the scales, then Mr. Kopel — listed as counsel of record on the green cover of the brief he handed out in favor of repealing the gun ban — would win hands down.


"D.C. law is the freakish edge that goes from gun control to gun prohibition," he said.


That's not to say that he's right. Mr. Payton's rebuttals did interject a dose of reason, especially when he set the record straight about black code laws that did not allow freedmen the right to own guns in their own homes to protect themselves from murderous Klan posses.


Mr. Payton said the Founding Fathers never envisioned today's urban areas or gun violence that disproportionately victimize blacks.


Still, when you are arguing for your life — as Mr. Kopel's clients contend they are because the District "does not allow them to the right to protect themselves in their own homes" — then I'd want the guy whose voice rises and face reddens and visibly gets hot under the collar making his most impassioned pleas on my side.

D. C. v. Heller

The five judicial activists chose to apply the rule established by the Court of the Kings Bench in the case of Rex v. Marks (1802), for no reason other than it would produce the results they personally desired.

What makes Joel Prentiss Bishop an authority on which rules of construction should be applied to the U. S. Constitution?

Why isn't the Sprague Court still the authority on which rules of interpretation should apply to the Constitution?

Why aren't Tiffany, Volokh, Dwarris or Sedgwick still the authority on the proper use of preambles in Constitutional interpretation?

So far, the five little activists have, with regard to the rules of construction, switched authorities six times. The five activists are obviously cherry picking. They are choosing to apply only those rules of construction that will produce the outcome they personally desire.

The well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was being made, are the rules that should be applied to the Constitution. Those rules are found in Blackstone's Commentaries, which was probably the only source of information about English common law the lawmakers had access to as the Constitution was being made.

You really couldn't just stick that post on this thread (http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showthread.php?t=45026) you had last week on the exact same topic? Instead you had to dig this thread up from 5 months ago.

wow

Ron

This topic has already been discussed on this forum in other threads. Your necro response is ill-timed, "Mick."

By the way, if you're going to necro, why don't you use your special glasses to examine the rules of construction that were used by the five little activists who decided Roe v. Wade?

Let's take a close look at the Court's interpretation of the the first clause of the Second Amendment in D. C. v. Heller. The words of the five judicial activists are in blue. My commentary is in red.



The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that

Commentary: The activists apparently recognize that rules of construction are necessary. I wonder if they will apply the rules that actually existed at the time the Constitution was being made?

“[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).

Commentary: That's probably not a bad rule. However, it wasn't one of the well established rules of construction at the time the Constitution was made. Is the Sprague Court going to be the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution. If so, why?

Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

Commentary: Where does that rule come from? Did the Sprague Court endorse that rule or did the five activist just make it up?

...The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief).

Commentary: Why did the five activists cite Tiffany as the authority for their "rephrasing" of the Amendment, and then rephrase it differently than Tiffany did? Why is the Sprague Court no longer the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the U. S. Constitution? If Tiffany is now the supreme authority on which rules of construction apply to the Constitution, should we apply Tiffany's other rules, such as the one that says, "the meaning of the constitution... must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation...at the time the constitution was framed and adopted.

Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace
Second Amendment, 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998).

Commentary: At time the Constitution was made, there were well established common law rules of construction. Under those rules, other legal documents cannot be consider, unless the rules allow them to be considered.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

Commentary: According to the well established rules existent at the time the Constitution was made, when the reason for a law terminates,so does the law. Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?

The Second Amendment would be nonsensical if it read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to petition for redress of grievances shall not be infringed.” That requirement of logical connection may cause a prefatory clause to resolve an ambiguity in the operative clause

Commentary: Under the rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made, if the cause that moved the legislator ceases to exist, so does the law. Now that we rely on a standing army, is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?

(“The separation of church and state being an important objective, the teachings of canons shall have no place in our jurisprudence.” The preface makes clear that the operative clause refers not to canons of interpretation but to clergymen.)

Commentary: The word "canons" doesn't mean "clergymen."

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris,
A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269 (P. Potter ed. 1871) (hereinafter Dwarris); T. Sedgwick, The Interpretation and Construction of Statutory and Constitutional Law 42–45 (2d ed. 1874).3 “

Commentary: Why is Tiffany no longer the authority on rules of construction?

‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).

Commentary: Why are Dwarris and Sedgwick no longer the supreme authorities on the rules of construction.

Therefore, while we will begin our textual analysis with the operative clause, we will return to the prefatory clause to ensure that our reading of the operative clause is consistent with the announced purpose.

Commentary: A textual analysis using the wrong rules of construction is worthless.

Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command.

Commentary: According to the well established rules existent at the time the Constitution was made, when the reason for a law terminates,so does the law. Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state?

Yes it is.

Even if your premise were correct, which it isn't, reality is that there are thousands of laws (http://www.dumblaws.com/random-laws)on the books today which exist despite there being no reason for them.

Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment isn't just "a law" in the legislative sense. It is part of the Constitution, which overrides all laws, and as such can only be removed by Constitutional Amendment, unlike other "laws."

Since the Supreme Court has not the Constitutional authority to remove or invalidate any part of the Constitution, your commentary is wrong. Scalia is correct when he states that it is not "this court's place to decide" whether or not the 2nd Amendment is outdated or necessary.

By the way, FredFlash (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98106on), or Fred von Flash (http://www.debateforums.net/vb/search.php?searchid=29716), member (http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/view/mb/search/deano?searchid=3787403&showas=post) of atheisteye.com (http://www.atheisteye.com/), I see people on other forums (http://forums.officer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=98106on)don't answer you either. Seems you have a lack of social skills, namely, the inability to answer direct questions and responses. And when they ban you for spamming, you call them cowards and Nancy Boys for not debating you, yet you never answer their questions.

Not to mention the annoying habit of spam-pasting the same stuff (http://americanhistoryforums.com/showthread.php?t=9) on multiple forums.

You're officially a troll.

By the way, do you have any pics of your Cadillac, or did you just happen upon this site another way? I'm asking because there isn't ONE SINGLE POST from you about your car, or anybody else's car.

Edit:

I found a post of yours (http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?p=28423#post28423) that clearly defines you as a statist, elitist gun grabber, FredFlash. Check this out:

#258 26th May 2008
FredFlash
Active Antagonist Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 738


“The [religious] proclamation of the two former presidents [George Washington and John Adams] recommending fasting and prayer, were of this nature [Proclamations]; they were an assumption of power not warranted by the constitution, or rather prohibited, by the true spirit of the third article of amendments. [Now known as the First Amendment]”

--Saint George Tucker (1803)
Tucker understood, correctly I believe, that the U. S. Constitution granted the government no jurisdiction whatsoever religion. Also, he does not say the "letter" of the Fist Amendment prohibits executive religious recommendations. He says the "spirit" of the First Amendment prohibits religious proclamations.

It must always be kept in mind, when interpreting the First Amendment, that it didn't separate religion from civil authority. The government never had any in the first place.

Also, when interpreting the Second Amendment, one must alway recall that the government was never granted any power whatsoever over 'arms." In retrospect, that was rather foolish. But, that's what they did.

They probably expected us to amend the Constitution to allow the government to control modern instruments of combat (Machine guns, explosives, aircraft, etc.) which common sense says should not be available to the general public.

By the way, scrolling down for the response was rewarding, as you had your big lips handed to you.

Hey all that I care is that if you take my guns, your better bring something bigger and alot of it. F'in LIBS

Frederick T. Slicer (http://lowcountryhumanists.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=291) is our troll's name. He's all over the internet with this crap. He's an atheist activist trying to argue down religious beliefs, to anyone who will listen.

He also goes by FreddieFriday and FridaySlice on other forums.

Evidently, this is the only subject that Fred knows anything about, anywhere. So if you want to engage him in another topic, you're wasting your time. And he uses the "answer by question" defense if you try to debate him.

Just letting y'all know.

Evidently, this is the only subject that Fred knows anything about, anywhere.

Not sure he actually knows too much about it. He seems to just be obfuscating things as much as possible.

Good work in finding the info about him. Puts his posts and reasoning in perspective...

He has long since proven himself to be nothing more then a troll in this forum who only detracts from the debate and confuses the issue.

His whole "rules of construction" thing is is an exaguration and nothing more then a red herring based largely on his "proof by assertion"...

He intentionally uses vague debate tactics and refuses to directly address any opposing points of view. He only detracts and distracts from any debate, while intentionally inflaming people here.

Because of his continuous flaming and trolling, he frankly doesn't belong on this forum, IMO.

Arguing with him is like beating your head against a brick wall! :Bang

I am tired of his wasting of my time on this forum...

Frederick T. Slicer (http://lowcountryhumanists.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=291) And he uses the "answer by question" defense if you try to debate him.

Um Correct me if I am wrong, but the Answer by question is they way all liberals debate. They dont have the better answer, just 450 ways to rephrase the question, until they dont even remember what the topic was. and then ask. "Can you please repeat the question"

I really need to read that book, How to speak to a Liberal. That might help some of my confusion

Um Correct me if I am wrong, but the Answer by question is they way all liberals debate. They dont have the better answer, just 450 ways to rephrase the question, until they dont even remember what the topic was. and then ask. "Can you please repeat the question"

I really need to read that book, How to speak to a Liberal. That might help some of my confusion
It never hurts to read one of Ann Coulter's books. Let me know how you like it, maybe I'll order a copy.

Frederick T. Slicer (http://lowcountryhumanists.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=291) is our troll's name. He's all over the internet with this crap. He's an atheist activist trying to argue down religious beliefs, to anyone who will listen.

He also goes by FreddieFriday and FridaySlice on other forums.

Evidently, this is the only subject that Fred knows anything about, anywhere. So if you want to engage him in another topic, you're wasting your time. And he uses the "answer by question" defense if you try to debate him.

Just letting y'all know.

It never hurts to read one of Ann Coulter's books. Let me know how you like it, maybe I'll order a copy.

My mom and dad said it was pretty good and they read a few. I just havent had the time yet with school. but if my old man did say its good then its worth it.

I haven't read that one, but the earlier books are excellent and well researched. Whether you think her sense of humor enhanced the value of the book or undermines it is a matter of opinion.

This (http://www.amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901) is a good book. I use it a lot.

When I go shopping in downtown Chicago...

When I go shopping in downtown Chicago...
You're bluffing. :D

You're bluffing. :DYou're right. My index finger wouldn't be on the trigger until my early warning device went off.:)

Is "a well regulated militia" still necessary for the security of the free state? Nope. However, a standing army is necessary. The fact that we don't have a militia anymore is all the proof one needs that a militia isn't necessary.

Nope. However, a standing army is necessary. The fact that we don't have a militia anymore is all the proof one needs that a militia isn't necessary.
Classic non sequitur, Fred. You really don't know your own favorite topic very well, as Shag pointed out.

A standing army is, in fact, a potential danger to the civil liberties of the citizens. Just look at China, the Khmer Rouge, and the USSR for examples.

I didn't notice anywhere during this discussion the fact that the phrase 'well regulated', at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, was understood to mean, roughly, 'well trained'. Certainly not the only reason for the individual right to bear arms, it's one that was thought understandable enough to be mentioned. If you don't have constant access to arms, it's unlikely that you will be comfortable and competent in the handling of them.

And please note that the right to self protection exists from the very beginning. It's simply one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, not created by such a listing. I've 'carried' most of my life, and my so-called 'permit' now simply makes daily life easier for me.
KS

you have great points, but as for them being comfortable and competent in handling of firearms. Good.... If some one doesnt feel good about them then I dont feel good being around them. Some times its better that some people just stay away.. "If you cant swim, stay out of the damn pool."

I didn't notice anywhere during this discussion the fact that the phrase 'well regulated', at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, was understood to mean, roughly, 'well trained'. Certainly not the only reason for the individual right to bear arms, it's one that was thought understandable enough to be mentioned. If you don't have constant access to arms, it's unlikely that you will be comfortable and competent in the handling of them.

And please note that the right to self protection exists from the very beginning. It's simply one of the rights enumerated in the Constitution, not created by such a listing. I've 'carried' most of my life, and my so-called 'permit' now simply makes daily life easier for me.
KS
Well said, I completely agree. What do you carry? I carry a Glock 27 with mag extender.

The States neglect their Militia.

--James Madison during the general convention of 1787 that drew up the U. S. Constitution

the phrase 'well regulated', at the time of the writing of the 2nd amendment, was understood to mean, roughly, 'well trained'Did you apply an objective method of interpretation to arrive at that meaning?

Cammerfe, ignore FreddieFriday, he's a troll.

Cammerfe, ignore FreddieFriday, he's a troll.

Take his advice, Cam my man. Don't think for yourself. Just let fossten do that for you.

Mick, we're having a conversation here. Why don't you go troll the police officers' forum or something?

Some times even the lawmakers didn't know what the Constitution meant.



Mr. KING asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd.

--The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison

I think Mick is actually a sophisticated web bot. There is no actual person behind the posts, just algorithms. We've confused it, so it just posts random responses.

ahhhh. loud noises.

I LOVE LAMP

I LOVE FLOOR.


Some one give this guy a blow dart gun so he can shoot himself in the foot while he practices sitting it in on naked pictures of highschool boys

I think Mick is actually a sophisticated web bot. There is no actual person behind the posts, just algorithms. We've confused it, so it just posts random responses.

I like that idea... ;)

I think Mick is actually a sophisticated web bot. There is no actual person behind the posts, just algorithms. We've confused it, so it just posts random responses.

He does come across as rather mechanized, doesn't he? :shifty:

He is the final Cylon! ;)

Well said, I completely agree. What do you carry? I carry a Glock 27 with mag extender.

Almost always I carry a .45 1911-type Kimber Ultra CDP II with a ported Bar-Sto 5" barrel. Along with it, I carry two 8 round Kimber Mags. If I'm just around the house, I stick a Kahr PM 9 in my pocket.

To be absolutely clear, it is well established that lawmakers understand the meaning of the words used in a law. In order to find the proper meaning of a legal term AT THE TIME THE LAW WAS WRITTEN, there is a law dictionary that is the official source. Recently, that dictionary is Black's. I don't remember offhand the name of the dictionary in use at the time of the framing of the Constitution but copies are around. Last I knew, you could get one from a concern in Boise, Idaho.
KS

Nice carry piece, Cammerfe, I'm envious.

I think Mick is actually a sophisticated web bot. There is no actual person behind the posts, just algorithms. We've confused it, so it just posts random responses.
http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1231_hysterically_laughing.gif

...the proem in the Second Amendment...was fully explained by the SCOTUS


We don't need the Constitution explained, dude. We need it honestly interpreted by applying the well established common law rules of construction the lawmakers, according to the historical evidence, most probably wanted applied to the Constitution.

Two of those well established common law rules of construction were invoked, by the great James Madison in Federalist No. 40 to, interpret "the act from Annapolis" and "that from Congress, in February, 1787" recommending what became the historic general convention that framed the U. S. Constitution.

The two rules of construction invoked by Madison date back to the time of Sir Edward Coke (1 February 1552 – 3 September 1634) and held that,

The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.


When interpreting the Second Amendment, every word it contains ought to be allowed some meaning and made to conspire with the goal of a free state. What meaning should be given to the words in the first clause of the Amendment in order that they act together with the words of the second clause to achieve the goal of a free state?

blahYawn. Are you still here, H.A.L.?

http://www.freshdv.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/2001_a_space_odyssey_hello_dave.jpg

http://www.courtenaysfineart.com/investment_opportunities/rolling_stones_signed.jpg

Every word in a law must be given an effect. The first clause must have an effect on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The most natural effect might be to construe the word "people" to mean the people in a well regulated militia or perhaps to interpret the word "arms" to mean the type of weapons employed by the well regulated militia or maybe both.

Ho Hum

(You don't have to agree with the SCOTUS, but it's the highest court in the land. There's no appeal from their findings.)

KS

Every word in a law must be given an effect. The first clause must have an effect on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The most natural effect might be to construe the word "people" to mean the people in a well regulated militia or perhaps to interpret the word "arms" to mean the type of weapons employed by the well regulated militia or maybe both.Dude, you sound like a man with a paper nose. :rolleyes:

buts hes good at copy pasting. Hell he probably has that in a word format ready for people like us. and when all else fails post gay pictures. COOOL

...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end.

The first clause of the Second Amendment must be made to act in harmony with its second clause toward the object of the security of a free state. The "right of the people" must be made to harmonize with "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a state."

For those two clauses to harmonize, either, the word "people" has to mean "a well regulated militia", or "a well regulated militia" has to mean "the people."

The statement, "people is necessary for the security of a free state", just sounds silly. However, the statement, "the right of the people in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds much better, don't you think?

...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end.

The first clause of the Second Amendment must be made to act in harmony with its second clause toward the object of the security of a free state. The "right of the people" must be made to harmonize with "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a state."

For those two clauses to harmonize, either, the word "people" has to mean "a well regulated militia", or "a well regulated militia" has to mean "the people."

The statement, "people is necessary for the security of a free state", just sounds silly. However, the statement, "the right of the people in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds much better, don't you think?



"An armed people being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

There, not perfect, but adheres your "rules" and is better than yours.

...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end.

The first clause of the Second Amendment must be made to act in harmony with its second clause toward the object of the security of a free state. The "right of the people" must be made to harmonize with "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a state."

For those two clauses to harmonize, either, the word "people" has to mean "a well regulated militia", or "a well regulated militia" has to mean "the people."

The statement, "people is necessary for the security of a free state", just sounds silly. However, the statement, "the right of the people in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds much better, don't you think?Fine. Amend the Constitution.

The common definition of 'militia' at the time of the writing of the Constitution was 'all able-bodied men using their own personal weapons'. Examples abound of activities to support this. Lexington-Concord battle is an example.
KS

Freddie pretends to be objective, spouting all this legal-sounding crap, but in reality he's just a gun grabber. He won't admit it, though. He seems to get his kicks from taunting those whom he can sucker into having a conversation with him.

poor basturdddd

The Second Amendment is extremely ambiguous. Especial when the rules of construction require that,

...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end...where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

-- James Madison; Federalist No. 40

In Federalists No. 40, James Madison wrested with the problem that the goal of achieving a NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT couldn't be achieved by means of mere ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. The means was insufficient to achieve the goal. Therefore, Madison sacrificed the means to the more important goal and expanded the means enough to achieve the goal.

In the case of the Second Amendment, the means to achieving the goal of "a well regulated militia" - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" -, exceeds, rather than falls short of providing, a means to achieving "a well regulated militia."

The issue is whether the means to achieving "a well regulated militia" should be scaled back, in the name of public safety, to what is necessary to achieve "a well regulated militia."

Your already-thin mask of objectivity is slipping when you use phrases like "in the name of public safety." I read you to say that allowing citizens to own and carry guns presents a threat to public safety. Is this what you're saying?

Here's Madison's original proposal to the House:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well-armed and well-regulated [i.e. well-trained, well-disciplined, effective] militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Because the semicolon after "shall not be infringed" is grammatically equal to a period, the individual right is not even theoretically conditional upon the rest of the sentence. The Congress later altered the syntax to:

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.

Even though contemporaries of the First Congress (such as St. George Tucker and William Rawle), along with the populace at large correctly viewed the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, the germ of ambiguous syntax was set for eternity.

That change of sentence structure was crucial. No longer was the right "to keep and bear arms" listed first and independent. By vaguely couching the right within the duty of a common militia, the 2nd Amendment can be theoretically read to mean that people may keep and bear arms for militia purposes only and no others. The Congress of 1789 likely knew that the 2nd amendment was slightly ambiguous, giving future courts an excuse to sanctify federal infringement of that right.

The courts have done precisely that, as evidence by the Miller case of 1939.

Here's a sabotage-proof Amendment:

Neither Congress, nor the President, nor any State shall deny, infringe, regulate, or tax the absolute right of the people, in either their individual or collective militia capacities, to own, convey, carry, and use weapons and their accoutrements. Any congressional act, executive order, or State legislative act which would, directly or indirectly, or under any guise or pretense, deny, infringe, regulate, or tax this cornerstone right is null and void at moment of passage, and may lawfully be, without pain of prosecution, ignored, or, if deemed necessary by the people, forcibly resisted.

In short, it's likely that due to the Federalists' desire and plan for a supreme, unchallengeable central government - vs. an armed citizenry's opposition to such future government - the 2nd Amendment was intentionally watered down to make possible the gradual whittling away our right of private arms.

Has this not happened exactly?

Foss---
I find that you and I very often agree on the sort of things we seem to talk about here. Unfortunately, if you are, in truth, suggesting that the original framers didn't really like the import of the 2nd Amendment and so worded it that it could be watered-down later, I must disagree. The problem is not the intent of the original framers, but the driven determination of 20th+ century liberals and secular progressives. They're determined to tell us what to do, and to remove any means of saying, "Get out of my face!"

A quick look at Miller will show that it's far from being on point with regard to civilian ownership of firearms. It's quite obvious that at least part of the argument is based on a false premise, because the firearm in question, a 12 gauge shotgun was and is, in reality, a quite common military-type weapon. Miller was decided without anyone before the Court to argue for the Defendants. Error crept in.

KS

Foss---
I find that you and I very often agree on the sort of things we seem to talk about here. Unfortunately, if you are, in truth, suggesting that the original framers didn't really like the import of the 2nd Amendment and so worded it that it could be watered-down later, I must disagree. The problem is not the intent of the original framers, but the driven determination of 20th+ century liberals and secular progressives. They're determined to tell us what to do, and to remove any means of saying, "Get out of my face!"

A quick look at Miller will show that it's far from being on point with regard to civilian ownership of firearms. It's quite obvious that at least part of the argument is based on a false premise, because the firearm in question, a 12 gauge shotgun was and is, in reality, a quite common military-type weapon. Miller was decided without anyone before the Court to argue for the Defendants. Error crept in.

KSI see your point; however, there was much debate in the convention that leads me to believe this. And let's face it, if they really didn't want guns to be touched, they could have worded it like the 1st Amendment; i.e. "Congress shall make no law abridging or infringing..."

Most of the 55 Philadelphia delegates did not want a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Only when five of the 13 states made ratification contingent upon a Bill of Rights did Rep. Madison convince Congress that it was necessary. Those states all included the right to bear arms, whereas only three mentioned freedom of speech. This would suggest that private armament was constitutionally more important than even free speech.

Pennsylvania's proposed amendment in 1788:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own State, or of the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.

Note the striking difference between Pennsylvania's version and the actual adopted version.

The wimpy verbiage in the 2nd Amendment made possible all the gun regs (over 20,000 laws - take that FredFlash) we have today. Had it been written as strongly as Madison's version, I'd be shooting a $400 Thompson SMG at $.05 per round.

'We don't really like this 2nd amendment much, so we'll monkey with the wording so as to make it easier to amend later'? That seems to be more a stretch than the antis usually aim for. A dispassionate look at daily activities at that time will show that arms were an integral part of life. Remember that the right to protect oneself is NOT something that came about because of the 2nd Amendment; that right is direct from God Almighty and simply mentioned in the Bill of Rights because of the attempts by the Monarchies of history to disarm the populace. The mass of writings by virtually all those to whom we look for the articulation of our political position are rife with the attitude that firearms are/should be daily companions of all free men.

"The right to bear arms is the right to be free" A E Van Vogt---The Weapon Shops Of Isher

KS

'We don't really like this 2nd amendment much, so we'll monkey with the wording so as to make it easier to amend later'? That seems to be more a stretch than the antis usually aim for. A dispassionate look at daily activities at that time will show that arms were an integral part of life. Remember that the right to protect oneself is NOT something that came about because of the 2nd Amendment; that right is direct from God Almighty and simply mentioned in the Bill of Rights because of the attempts by the Monarchies of history to disarm the populace. The mass of writings by virtually all those to whom we look for the articulation of our political position are rife with the attitude that firearms are/should be daily companions of all free men.

"The right to bear arms is the right to be free" A E Van Vogt---The Weapon Shops Of Isher

KSHey, I'm with ya brother, believe me. It just seemed a bit suspicious. They certainly didn't do us any favors with the wording, intentional or not. And it is interesting that even back then there were compromises - I guess politics is never without them.

Amen

...every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end.

The first clause of the Second Amendment must be made to act in harmony with its second clause toward the object of the security of a free state. The "right of the people" must be made to harmonize with "a well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a state."

For those two clauses to harmonize, either, the word "people" has to mean "a well regulated militia", or "a well regulated militia" has to mean "the people."

The statement, "people is necessary for the security of a free state", just sounds silly. However, the statement, "the right of the people in a well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" sounds much better, don't you think?


You know, I just really looked at what 'Mik' said here. And, you know, he's right. 'THE PEOPLE' REALLY ARE A 'WELL REGULATED MILITIA'. That's what it means, you dunderhead.
KS

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, most the the U. S. Senators didn't even want the state militias to have the right to keep and bear arms.

A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms & if two thirds had agreed it would have been an amendment to the Constitution. They are afraid that the Citizens will stop their full Career to Tyranny & Oppression.

Source: John Randolph to St. George Tucker, 11 September 1789, St. George Tucker Papers, Library of Congress.

If the Senators didn't want the militias to have arms, they probably didn't want the people to have them either.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, most the the U. S. Senators didn't even want the state militias to have the right to keep and bear arms.

A majority of the Senate were for not allowing the militia arms & if two thirds had agreed it would have been an amendment to the Constitution. They are afraid that the Citizens will stop their full Career to Tyranny & Oppression.

Source: John Randolph to St. George Tucker, 11 September 1789, St. George Tucker Papers, Library of Congress.

If the Senators didn't want the militias to have arms, they probably didn't want the people to have them either.
But the Senators didn't get their will, thanks to the States. Yet another reason why we should return more power to the States. The Fed government cannot be trusted with too much power.

Thanx Mik---
I've always found it hard to trust a Senator. You've just given me another reason to feel that way!
KS

Thanx Mik---
I've always found it hard to trust a Senator. You've just given me another reason to feel that way!
KS
As if Dick Durbin, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, and Chuck Schumer weren't enough. :D

Here's an item of historical evidence, from the time when the Constitution was actually being made, that the well established common law rules of construction were taken for granted to apply the U. S. Constitution.


This article [of the U. S. Constitution] vests the courts with authority to give the constitution a legal construction, or to explain it according to the rules laid down for construing a law.

--Robert Yates on January 31, 1788 interpreting Article III of the Constitution.

Here's an item of historical significance as well:

Yabba Dabba Doo.

-- Frederick Flintstone

But, by the very nature of government, the legislature had an implied power of using every means, not positively prohibited by the Constitution, to execute the ends for which that government was instituted. Every constitutional right should be so liberally construed as to effect the public good. This, it has been said, was taking too great a latitude; but certainly to promote the ends of government was the end of its existence; and by the ties of conscience, each member was bound to exercise every lawful power which could have a tendency to promote the general welfare.

--Fisher Ames in 1791 on the meaning of the Constitution (which includes the Second Amendment)

If the people of D. C. believe that the general welfare of the District requires a ban on hand guns, shouldn't the right of the people of the District to keep and bear arms be construed to protect only the right of the people that actually comprise the official members of "a well regulated militia?" After all, the Amendment says it is "a well regulated militia", not an armed but poorly regulated body of the people, that is necessary for "the security of a free state."

If the people of D. C. believe that the general welfare of the District requires a ban on hand gunsThe people of DC don't believe this. The government of DC believes this.

Mickey, are you deliberately obtuse? All able people are the militia, and well regulated, in the parlance of the day, meant 'trained'. The militia supplied their own guns. Any gun you brought was just fine. Guns were very much part of every-day life. You keep tripping on your own tongue!!
KS

Mickey, are you deliberately obtuse? All able people are the militia, and well regulated, in the parlance of the day, meant 'trained'. The militia supplied their own guns. Any gun you brought was just fine. Guns were very much part of every-day life. You keep tripping on your own tongue!!
KSI'm surprised that you're still surprised. ;)

What's wrong with the following except from the recent Supreme Court opinion in D. C. v. Heller?

The Second Amendment provides: “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.” In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.--D. C. v. Heller

Any educated person can see that to ascertain the meaning of the Second Amendment we're probably going to need more than a principle regarding whether to understand the words according to their normal or abnormal use or their ordinary or extraordinary use.

Most of the words in the Second Amendment were used to signify more than one idea. We're going to need rules of construction to ascertain which one of the several meanings the lawmakers had in mind.

According to Scalia's principle, we're not even allowed to consider the "context" of the words, which defies all common sense. We're also not allowed to consider previous writings on the "subject matter" of people having arms, which the lawmakers may have had in their eye and to which end their expressions may been directed.

In addition, Scalia doesn't give us permission to consider the "effects and consequences" of a meaning we give to a word. If the meaning of a word results in an absurdity, Scalia's principle doesn't allow us to reject it.

Finally, Scalia's principle doesn't give us permission to consider the "reason and spirit" of the Amendment, or the "cause which moved the lawmakers" to make the Amendment.

have you any friends? Seriously, nobody gives a rats ass about how you feel about guns, or their owners and how we interrupt the constitution.. SHUT THE :q:q:q:q UP.

Go and get a job and make something useful of yourself. You dont even have an argument against this, Nothing out there to cut and paste.

and while your at it move to :q:q:q:qing Quebec, you will fit right in.

:bowrofl:

Any educated person can see that to ascertain the meaning of the Second Amendment we're probably going to need more than a principle regarding whether to understand the words according to their normal or abnormal use or their ordinary or extraordinary use.

Most of the words in the Second Amendment were used to signify more than one idea. We're going to need rules of construction to ascertain which one of the several meanings the lawmakers had in mind.

According to Scalia's principle, we're not even allowed to consider the "context" of the words, which defies all common sense. We're also not allowed to consider previous writings on the "subject matter" of people having arms, which the lawmakers may have had in their eye and to which end their expressions may been directed.

In addition, Scalia doesn't give us permission to consider the "effects and consequences" of a meaning we give to a word. If the meaning of a word results in an absurdity, Scalia's principle doesn't allow us to reject it.

Finally, Scalia's principle doesn't give us permission to consider the "reason and spirit" of the Amendment, or the "cause which moved the lawmakers" to make the Amendment.

Notwithstanding my heartfelt agreement with Rubberducky700's comments, I've tried hard to follow the meaning of your extant post. My conclusion---
Non Sequitur
KS

Every other amendment in the Bill of Rights applies to INDIVIDUALS. Some of the first ten amendments apply to the States and some are not clear as to who they apply to. Also, two of the twelve amendments originally proposed, in 1789 by the first session of the First U. S. Congress, to the States, had nothing whatsoever to do with an sort of right, individual or otherwise. Furthermore, in the words of the learned Joseph Story, It does not follow, either logically or grammatically, that because a word is found in one connexion in the constitution, with a definite sense, therefore the same sense is to be adopted in every other connexion, in which it occurs. This would be to suppose, that the framers weighed only the force of single words, as philologists or critics, and not whole clauses and objects, as statesmen and practical reasoners... ...It was very justly observed by the Supreme Court, "that the same words have not necessarily the same meaning attached to them, when found in different parts of the same instrument. Their meaning is controlled by the context. This is undoubtedly true. In common language, the same word has various meanings; and the peculiar sense, in which it is used in any sentence, is to be determined by the context."

Troll has yet to reveal his point.

He reminds me of Lazlo from Real Genius, the guy who went nuts because all he wanted to do was solve math problems.

Just more of the same trying to out lawyer the Founding Fathers.... That's a rather off-tone comment given that I'm the one who actually applies the same method of Constitutional Interpretation the lawmakers believed should be applied to the U. S. Constitution of 1788.

Even the lawmakers who opposed the Constitution believed the well established common law rules of construction applied to the national charter. Here's Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention who opposed the Constitution, indicating in Anti-Federalist No. 11, dated January of 1788, that the well established common law rules of construction, as laid down by the learned Blackstone, should be applied to the Constitution.

This article vests the courts with authority to give the constitution a legal construction, or to explain it according to the rules laid down for construing a law. — These rules give a certain degree of latitude of explanation. According to this mode of construction, the courts are to give such meaning to the constitution as comports best with the common, and generally received acceptation of the words in which it is expressed, regarding their ordinary and popular use, rather than their grammatical propriety. Where words are dubious, they will be explained by the context. The end of the clause will be attended to, and the words will be understood, as having a view to it; and the words will not be so understood as to bear no meaning or a very absurd one.

2d. The judicial are not only to decide questions arising upon the meaning of the constitution in law, but also in equity.

By this they are empowered, to explain the constitution according to the reasoning spirit of it, without being confined to the words or letter.

"From this method of interpreting laws (says Blackstone) by the reason of them, arises what we call equity;" which is thus defined by Grotius, "the correction of that, wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient["]; for since in laws all cases cannot be foreseen, or expressed, it is necessary, that when the decrees of the law cannot be applied to particular cases, there should some where be a power vested of defining those circumstances, which had they been foreseen the legislator would have expressed; and these are the cases, which according to Grotius, ["]lex non exacte definit, sed arbitrio boni viri permittet."
http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus11.htm

zzz...

ya seriously why waste your time this guy has no mission in life. but did you notice he had no copy paste about what I said. Uh, how about that.

"The people" refers to the citizenry in every mention of the phrase within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The well established common law rules of construction dictate that

"words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification, not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use; that if words happen to be dubious, their meaning may be established by the context, or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument..."

The usual and most known significations of the word "people" in the late 1780's were "a nation" and "those who compose a community." A word with more than one meaning is "dubious", and the rules dictate that where this is the case, the "meaning may be established by the context[/B], or by comparing them with other words and sentences in the same instrument..."

Common sense dictates that we consider all of the context of the word "people" in the Second Amendments. That context includes the first clause of the Second Amendment, which doesn't harmonize/conspire/coordinate/work well with the second clause because the term "well regulated militia" doesn't work very well with either "a nation" or "those who compose a community" to achieve the goal of "the security of a free state."

"A nation" or "those who compose a community" don't need to be free to keep and bear arms to achieve the object of a well regulated militia with the freedom to keep and bear. To accomplish the goal, only those who compose the well regulated militia need the freedom to keep and bear arms.

There is a rule of construction that covers a situation where the several parts cannot be made to coincide. The rule dictates that, "the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means."

The goal of "a well regulated militia" is more important, because it is the end being sought, than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", which is merely a means to a more important end. Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear must be sacrificed to the more important end of "a well regulated militia" with the freedom to keep and bear.

I request that admin stickies this thread and renames it the Mick Jagger Spam Thread. That way he won't be tempted to hijack other threads.