🇳🇱
While I am often not very happy witht he GOP leaning SCOTUS on this one I really am glad to have a right-leaning supreme court.
Lets hope they do the right thing and knock down these and similar state-laws as unconstitutional and in violation of the #2A
@freemo Make a case for this being unconstitutional.
@jaysonmassey I'd say the wording of the second amendment makes it very clear. It is pretty clear about the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed".. its also very clear (and stated in countless direct quotes from the authors) that the "well regulated militia" is a exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause.
So, as far as i can tell, the current wording and history is so clear there isnt much need to make a case, or at least, there shouldnt be much need.
@jaysonmassey It means that it is mentioning the militia only as an **example** as to why we need gun rights, not as a **condition** on why we need it...
The wording is right there in the 2A ... "being necessary".. It gives an example as to one reason why it is neccesary, and states as much. Nothing in the wording is even suggestive of the fact that it should be a right limited to the militia.
Also very clearly explained in quotes from the founding fathers who wrote it.
@freemo Thanks for your explanation.
Think about if the first amendment was worded as:
A free press being necessary for the functioning of a country, the right to freedom of speak shall not be infringed
Essentially the same format.. if you read that would you or anyone objectively reading it be able to say "Ok thats saying only the press should have freedom of speech and no one else should have that right"... or that "that seems to suggest I can infringe on peoples freedom of speech as long as its not the press"
I doubt it, and frankly I suspect anyone reading the second amendment who isnt bias would probably agree with me.
@freemo The press is not 'well-regulated'. Actually, ANYONE, including us, COULD be in the press.
The other big issue is that generally, the Constitution is a 'living' document. It should change as needed:
"Happily for us," he said, "that when we find our constitutions
defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people,
we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers, and set them to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or to restore their constitution."'"
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1930&context=mlr
> The press is not 'well-regulated'. Actually, ANYONE, including us, COULD be in the press.
Funnily enough if you want to go that angle one of our founding fathers who was there when it was written addressed exactly this in 1788:
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason
> The other big issue is that generally, the Constitution is a 'living' document. It should change as needed
Absolutely. Write a new amendment and at least its not a dishonest tactic and well within the intention. But this is not what people do, and for now until that happens, these laws are unconstitutional.
@freemo @freemo Would 'the whole people' include women? Slaves? Disabled people? The old?
Could a older person load a musket? Someone with only one arm?
Can't just take these writings literally.
They were arguments with each other in the 1700s, before AR-15s.
Frame the Framers in the time and environment they were in. That takes reading.
@freemo One other issue is that the Supreme Court itself will interpret the Constitution differently, even though it's so old. So, it changes even though the WORDS themselves haven't changed.
@jaysonmassey YEs, but for the SCOTUS to act in good faith they must be trying their best to interprit the words as they are clearly written to mean, and only deviate when the words arent explicit... shall not infringe is pretty explicit.
@freemo I have no idea what you are talking about here. The SCOTUS chooses which cases to hear and votes. The SCOTUS may vote on the case, if they do that "in good faith" is a matter of opinion based on each individual case.
@jaysonmassey No, the SCOTUS can not just make up any arbitrary vote they want.. .there is an expectation (though this may not be honored, and if not they may be impeached) that they will try to honor the law as it is written. They dont get to just makeup any meaning they want.. i mean yea they **could** but that would be a gross violation of their oath and expectations.
@freemo Sure they do. They are appointed for life and can make decision they want based off of any rationale they want. They shouldn't, but that's not how things work in reality.
Again, you'd have to look at the cases and their rationale (or lack therof). They are human beings, after all. So are the Founders.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/supreme-court/13-worst-supreme-court-decisions-of-all-time/
@jaysonmassey Well no.. they take an oath and can be impeached if they violate that oath.... so no. The intent and legal framework is such that if they vote contrary to the constitution that they would and should be impeached. They do not get to make up anything they want, there are rules and if they dont follow them they get impeached, or at least there is a mechanism for that.
Every founding father I ever found to directly quote who is "all people", and if it included blacks or slaves, if they addressed it they said they were against slavery and when they said all people they meant all people. Of course, many states didnt follow that intention and slavery was a horrific problem. But that is an example of how forward thinking the authors were IMO.
@freemo Huh? Let's just stop here. You're not even arguing about the 2nd Amendment now, you're arguing about the 13th Amendment, which is a whole other process entirely with it's own arguments.
@jaysonmassey You asked if the founding fathers intended all the people in the 2A to include people with limited rights from the era like black people, women, etc... I am saying what comments we have from the authors to that effect they clearly wanted it to include everyone, yes. We arent talking about the 13th amendment, that came after them.
@freemo This is why I asked you not to go into this. Slaves are property. Why would ANYONE arm their property? Doesn't make sense. Women can't vote or own property. Can they arm themselves? These are issues that you have to realize some of them leave out or ignore.
@jaysonmassey No one said anything about slaves.. I said black people, yes slaves makes it more complicated, and in that regard many of the founding fathers were against slavery, and there are many quotes on that too. Not claiming they are perfect but the point is a good many of the founding fathers and authors have been quotes as saying (in one phrasing or another) 1) All people included minorities 2) Slavery is wrong and as such All people is intended to include even slaves (though in practice it did not of course and took an amendment to make sure it did)
@freemo Enjoy your day!
You have a good day too.
@jaysonmassey @freemo
"But pride---where there is a real superiority of mind, pride will be always under good regulation."---Jane Austen
That does not mean you can get a pride license from the Department of Emotions.
@freemo @jaysonmassey "the right to BEAR arms". The law doesn't seem to stop that. Though no civilised country should have that as part of its constitution anyway
The drfinition of infringe is "To act so as to limit".
If you are placing limits on my right to bear arms, by a law that exludes guns, then by definition you are infringing. So outside of limitations placed elsewhere in the constitution itself tpany state law to limit what guns one can bear is unconstitutional
Well then, why stop at guns? Why can't we have nuclear weapons? Mustard gas? Plastic explosives? Those are weapons.
The arguments break down. I would do some more reading on it. I put a couple of articles there. Just read them, I don't expect you to agree with them.
https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3837733-forgotten-words-a-well-regulated-militia/
@freemo @jaysonmassey Any court that regards the 2nd amendment as giving an unrestricted right to bear arms in any circumstances is clearly incompetent in that it is incapable of understanding the amendment. Any country that regards the right to bear arms outside of specific circumstances cannot call itself civilized. Any country that regards that right above the right to life is barbaric. Anybody who claims to be pro-life in regard to abortion yet supports the right to bear arms is a hypocrite.
Yea thats not what anyone is saying... the right can be restricted by the wording ofnother parts of tbe constitution and from that some very broad restrictions apply.
What is being said is simple, fix the amendment dont make up unconstitutional laws. There is a process, use it.
Everything else you sais is rhetoric
Do you think that law would have helped, or hurt Ukrainians before Russia invaded?
@threalist @freemo @jaysonmassey would have made little difference. A well-regulated militia, on the other hand...
I still say that when they make the big push to repeal the Second Amendment and try to take away our firearms for real, that will be the beginning of the last stand, when the real war for this country will finally begin, and when you really find out which side people are on.
At that time, there will be a separation of those who will readily submit, who will capitulate without a fight, and those who will only allow their guns to removed from their “cold, dead hands”
@freemo Let's get clear on this:
"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."
What does ""well regulated militia" is a exemplary clause and not a qualifying clause" mean?