User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:15:16 PM EDT
[#1]
Food for thoughtful folks on this Board -
The two Judges who voted for the 'individual' right to keep and bear arms were: Judge William L. Garwood, appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Reagan in 1981! Judge Harold R. DeMoss, Jr., appointed to the Fifth Circuit by President Bush in 1991! The sole Judge voting to avoid the 'individual' vs. 'collective' right to keep and bear arms issue was Judge Robert M. Parker, a judge with whom I am most familiar, who was appointed to the Fifth Circuit by Clinton in 1994! So the Republican Presidents appointed Judges who were mindful of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, while the DemocRat President appointed a Judge that was less than enthusiastic about even determining that issue! Don't get me wrong, Judge Parker, who was a US District Judge when I practiced before him, is a real East Texas 'good old boy' from Longview. Problem is, he's obviously not 'good old boy' enough! Appeal to the Supreme Court may delay the case for Dr. Emerson, which may be good for him, but to put this matter before the SCOTUS, as that Court is presently composed, has serious drawbacks for the RKBA! We need a few more Supreme Court Justices such as Scalia and Thomas (both appointed by Republicans) before we want that Court to hear such an important issue as the RKBA! So what should we do? KEEP VOTING REPUBLICAN!!! Eric The(SoWhomDoWeVoteForIn2002?2004?)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:23:50 PM EDT
[#2]
Interesting info, Eric. Judge Parker's opinion was so shifty, it was shameless. It just seemed to say "This issue is controversial, so we shouldn't decide it".
Unfortunately, just being a Republican judge is not sufficient - witness Justice Souter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:41:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Eric, I have a question for you. The question centers around the fact that the finding today in Emerson was made by a 3-judge panel instead of the full bench of the 5th Circuit.
Does today's opinion set the precedent for the entire 5th Circuit? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:45:26 PM EDT
[#4]
As near as I can tell the only thing this decsion would seem to say is that no state or federal government could make a law which would totally ban the ownership of firearms. It still allows for almost unrestricted regulation of firearms if enough wrong people hold seats in the state and federal legislatures and white house. Better hope Bush doesn't f*ck up and let Hilary get elected POTUS at the next go round.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:48:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Read note 66 in the Appendix: "...The district court dismissed the indictment and Emerson has not yet been convicted of anything. In fact, we have been informed that he has been acquitted of state charges relating to the matter mentioned in the special concurrence...." As far as I can tell, Emerson no longer has "standing" and the SCOTUS will likely decline to hear the case. As it stands now the ruling only applies to the 5th circuit. That's what I originally thought, however researching a number of Circuit Court cases I found that there are numerous examples of one circuit court applying the ruling of another Circuit Court. Such as Hickman v. Block (9th) quoting US v. Hale (8th), US v. Graves (3rd) and US v. Oakes (10th). Thats right, when Miller was first heard the US Army did not own any shotguns shorter than 18inches, While the standard model 97 and model 12 were originally sold to the Army with 18 and 20 inch barrels, many units modified theirs to be much shorter. ...this ruling is bad for us. The court is basically saying, that it's an individual right but it's subject to any semi-reasonable regulation. While it's [b]HUGE[/b] that a circuit court finally ruled that the 2nd is an individual right after many rulings where circuit courts declared the opposite (collective right, etc.), there is still the very large opportunity for the anti-gunners to continue trying to put a stranglehold on the 2nd. I think we'll see less of the outright calls for bans and more bald-faced lies about "reasonable safety" laws that really create so many laws and red tape that having a firearm will be beyond the scope of most of America. Another thing is that the myriad of anti-gun literature and anti-gun web sites may very well have to look at changing their wording from this "collective right" sophistry they've been selling. Or like they did with John Lott for so many years, they'll ignore it until they can figure out what to do with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:49:31 PM EDT
[#6]
As far as the right to bear arms goes, you need to refer to the ruling of Alabama's Supreme Court. Alabama's high court many years ago ruled that the right to bear arms meant you can carry a gun on your person, but does not protect the right to conceal that weapon. That is why Alabama allows open carry, but not concealed carry. It seems some of the better states even, like Texas ban open carry. If the state believes open carry is too scary then the only other choice to allow the right to bear arms is to allow concealed carry. As it comes down to it states on an individual basis will be ablw to decide how a person can carry, but not whether they can carry. One state might say open carry only. Another might say holstered guns only. Yet another might demand that guns be concealed from public view.
Similarly I believe that the NFA may be allowed to continue in the form it was before 1968. Courts will likely rule that registration and background checks don't infringe since you can still own the gun. But, they might rule a $200 transfer tax infringes. Yet a $200 making tax would fall into the same categories as excise taxes and probably will be allowed. In short this will mean: 1) Carry w/o a lisence would be allowed but how you carry could be restricted. 2) NFA Guns can be transferred alot easier and taken out of state w/o permission. 3) NFA Guns would still be registered and a tax collected for the making. 4) FFLs will still be required to sell firearms. FFLs will still be required for out of state transfers. 5) Background checks will continue, but the fees might be reduced or eliminated. Background checks for private sales would probably be allowed. 6) Outright bans would be overturned. Such as The 1994 AW Ban, 1989 Import Ban, State AW Bans, Hi-Cap Bans, etc. would be overturned. 7) May issue would likely become shall issue. 8) States will continue to require permits for Concealed Carry since open carry will be legal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 6:58:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Read note 66 in the Appendix: "...The district court dismissed the indictment and Emerson has not yet been convicted of anything. In fact, we have been informed that he has been acquitted of state charges relating to the matter mentioned in the special concurrence...." As far as I can tell, Emerson no longer has "standing" and the SCOTUS will likely decline to hear the case. Robbie, Emerson was acquited of [u]state charges[/u], not the [u]federal[/u] charges. His case is still very much alive and he has standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:00:49 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: As far as the right to bear arms goes, you need to refer to the ruling of Alabama's Supreme Court. Alabama's high court many years ago ruled that the right to bear arms meant you can carry a gun on your person, but does not protect the right to conceal that weapon. That is why Alabama allows open carry, but not concealed carry. It seems some of the better states even, like Texas ban open carry. If the state believes open carry is too scary then the only other choice to allow the right to bear arms is to allow concealed carry. As it comes down to it states on an individual basis will be ablw to decide how a person can carry, but not whether they can carry. One state might say open carry only. Another might say holstered guns only. Yet another might demand that guns be concealed from public view. Similarly I believe that the NFA may be allowed to continue in the form it was before 1968. Courts will likely rule that registration and background checks don't infringe since you can still own the gun. But, they might rule a $200 transfer tax infringes. Yet a $200 making tax would fall into the same categories as excise taxes and probably will be allowed. In short this will mean: 1) Carry w/o a lisence would be allowed but how you carry could be restricted. 2) NFA Guns can be transferred alot easier and taken out of state w/o permission. 3) NFA Guns would still be registered and a tax collected for the making. 4) FFLs will still be required to sell firearms. FFLs will still be required for out of state transfers. 5) Background checks will continue, but the fees might be reduced or eliminated. Background checks for private sales would probably be allowed. 6) Outright bans would be overturned. Such as The 1994 AW Ban, 1989 Import Ban, State AW Bans, Hi-Cap Bans, etc. would be overturned. 7) May issue would likely become shall issue. 8) States will continue to require permits for Concealed Carry since open carry will be legal. I don't see where you get any of that from this ruling. The court upheld one of the flimsiest and most specious portions of the 1994 crime bill and said it did not infringe on our RKBA. Why in the world would it overturn or lead anyone else to overturn more widely accepted and better legally founded provisions? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:05:55 PM EDT
[#9]
It's not that they upheld the restraining order, it is they upheld the 2nd. If you have a right to keep and bear arms then you can't be prevented from owning any firearm. But, as the court has shown it is ok with restricting how people and who can KBA. This means they would be OK with registration since you can still own. They would be OK with the 68 GCA since Felons, etc. can be restricted. Outright bans are infringment. the 94 and 89 Bans are outright bans and therefore would likely be overturned. If some firearm is banned then you cannot own one and therefore it violates the 2nd.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:08:18 PM EDT
[#10]
Emerson was acquited of [u]state charges[/u], not the [u]federal[/u] charges. His case is still very much alive and he has standing. Gah! I even looked up USC 922(g)(8) to read it tonight. Obviously it isn't a Texas code. Duh! Thanks for clarifying. In that case, this horserace is still too early to call... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:15:02 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: It's not that they upheld the restraining order, it is they upheld the 2nd. If you have a right to keep and bear arms then you can't be prevented from owning any firearm. But, as the court has shown it is ok with restricting how people and who can KBA. This means they would be OK with registration since you can still own. They would be OK with the 68 GCA since Felons, etc. can be restricted. Outright bans are infringment. the 94 and 89 Bans are outright bans and therefore would likely be overturned. If some firearm is banned then you cannot own one and therefore it violates the 2nd. That's how we would apply it, but I don't see anything to indicate that's how any court would apply it. They didn't say anything about the 89 or 94 bans one way or the other (except Judge Parker in his dissent to Section V, where he said, "whatever the scope of the claimed Second Amendment right, no responsible individual or organization would suggest that it would protect Emerson's possession of the other guns found in his military-style arsenal the day the federal indictment was handed down. In addition to the Beretta nine millimeter pistol at issue here, Emerson had a second Beretta like the first, a semi-automatic M-1 carbine, an SKS assault rifle with bayonet, and a semi-automatic M-14 assault rifle.") I think it's much more likely they would view bans on "assault weapons" as being just as reasonable as the machine gun ban in [i]Miller[/i]. After all, Congress used the same rationale in both laws, i.e., that they were banning the weapons of gangsters and criminals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:21:32 PM EDT
[#12]
But, the difference is that you can still own a Machine Gun, Silencer, or hell even a Surface-To-Air Missle, but you cannot own a gun w/ A Flash Supressor. If the govt. were to have placed NFA-like restrictions on SAWs it would be one thing. But banning them changed that.
The intersting part comes when they decide if taxes are infringment. If they decide money is no issue then the 94 Ban may be upheld. But the 89 Ban would likely be restricted since Sporting purposes is no longer the distinction. If they decide money is an issue, a new ban that would require registration, etc. would likely be upheld in the place of the 94 Ban. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 7:28:24 PM EDT
[#13]
The military uses:
1) M16 Assault Rifles (Banned in 1986) 2) M60 Light Machine Guns (Banned in 1986) 3) Squad Automatic Weapons (Banned in 1986) 4) MP-5 Submachine Guns (Banned in 1986) 5) Flash Supressors (Banned in 1994) 6) Grenade Launchers (Banned in 1994) 7) Threaded Barrels (Banned in 1994) 8) Bayonet Lugs (Banned in 1994) 9) .50 Caliber Sniper Rifles 10) M9 Pistols |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 8:12:15 PM EDT
[#14]
One reason why I think we are still in trouble:
No one can understand the ruling except lawyers. Look how long it is! Christ, the entire US Constitution is only what, 8 pages? Until we get back to that kind of simplicity, we are still doomed to a life of fighting over minutiae. Like I need a US court to tell me I have a pre-existing right to bear arms. Ha! I think this ruling helps, but we can already see gun controllers calling it a victory for their side. I hope it's a poison pill--they swallow it thinking it is good for them and then, oh shit! It's cyanide! Death to tyrants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 9:19:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Bump for the GOOD NEWS!!! [beer]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 9:25:03 PM EDT
[#16]
Am I understanding this right?
2nd is an individual right- win but any limitations on it are proper and legal- - loss I would like to see this as a big win, but I don't see how it is. Could someone please explain how this is good news..God knows I could use some. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/16/2001 9:56:08 PM EDT
[#17]
BillofRights, click on [url]http://freerepublic.com/focus/fr/549478/posts[/url], and read what is being discussed.
While the Emerson decision is not the magic pill that we might have wished for, it is a HUGE first step in the proper direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 4:06:35 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: As far as the right to bear arms goes, you need to refer to the ruling of Alabama's Supreme Court. Alabama's high court many years ago ruled that the right to bear arms meant you can carry a gun on your person, but does not protect the right to conceal that weapon. That is why Alabama allows open carry, but not concealed carry. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 4:08:47 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: ... While the Emerson decision is not the magic pill that we might have wished for, it is a HUGE first step in the proper direction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 4:50:54 AM EDT
[#20]
Post from ckapsl -
Eric, I have a question for you. The question centers around the fact that the finding today in Emerson was made by a 3-judge panel instead of the full bench of the 5th Circuit. Does today's opinion set the precedent for the entire 5th Circuit? Yes, but it will always be given a notation as being from a three-judge panel and not being an [b][i]'en banc'[/i][/b] decision. I firmly believe that the remaining judges on the panel would uphold the decision as it stands so it would be nice if Emerson asked for a rehearing 'en banc', which would most likely be granted, given the significance of the decision! A little 'behind the scenes' info on that - all but the most 'serious' cases are heard by a three judge panel. When a party asks for a rehearing 'en banc', the clerks for the judges who voted in favor of the decision will begin to canvas the other judges' clerks for support, while the clerks for the judges who may have voted the other way, will also begin a campaign for their position in the case. It's then a 'battle of the clerks.' And it is [u]all[/u] politics after that! But Thank God in Heaven - the Fifth Circuit is not only a 'Republican' court, it is a 'conservative' Court, as well, meaning that even Democrat-appointed judges are more or less conservative in their views! I've been before them on three ocassions - one big win, one win, and one loss. The loss came in the [u]In Re:McManus[/u] case, which, although we never appealed it further, was successfully challenged in the 11th Circuit and was won in the Supreme Court. The attorneys in that case did me the honor of citing my brief in their appeal to the 11th Circuit. SCOTUS even directly stated that the [u]McManus[/u] case was wrongly decided. Ah, justice triumphs! Don't think I didn't rub [u]that[/u] in a few noses at the Fifth Circuit![:D] Eric The(YouShouldSeeTheFederalBuildingInNewOrleansWhereTheFifthCircuitSits!It'sBuiltToWithstandRiots!)Hun[>]:)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 5:44:33 AM EDT
[#21]
Good morning all, I see that a lot of discussion occured while I was sleeping...but I will reach way back and answer a question or two even if someone has already stated basic answers.
--There are no absolute rights, hound - Not even the right to breathe. Any right can be deprived through due process.---This is my major problem with the ruling. Voting rights can only be removed by a court-as far as I know-this rulling can have your RKBA removed with an administrative proceeding. Oh well, one step closer to the abyss..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 7:26:40 AM EDT
[#22]
There are some more takes on the decision here: [url]http://www.keepandbeararms.com[/url]
[b][i][red]Libertas an Mortis![b][i][red] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:15:30 AM EDT
[#23]
Well I read the ruling last night and wish I had brought it to work to reference. Damn thing is 73 pages long and I'm not about to print another copy just so I can print references. However, if my memory serves me correctly, these are the key points.
1. The 2nd amendment is an individual, and not a collective right. This determination was reached by a historical analysis of the founding fathers, both federalist and anti-federalist. The Bill of Rights was written to address concerns of the anti-federalists who might have blocked ratification of the Constitution without such guarantees. Since other portions of the Constitution address the power of the federal and state governments to raise and provision militias there was clearly no need for an amendment to assure the same. Given that all other rights contained in the Bill of Rights address the individual, the pattern clearly indicates that the 2nd amendment must as well. 2. The Miller ruling provides that individuals have the right to own waepons of the nature currently employed by military forces, both as a counter to the threat of tyranny and also as a means to supliment. The sawed off shotgun was determined to have no military value, and was perceived as a weapon of the criminal element, and therefore was not protected. The NFA laws that ban sawed off shotguns, machine guns and short barreled rifles were designed to attack the criminal element. The prohibition on machine guns could probably be successfully today due to the fact that they were not used widely by the military at the time of the NFA, but circumstances have changed and they clearly have a legitimate military use today - as evidenced by the fact that almost all military rifles are select-fire. 3. No right is absolute. An individual may be denied their rights upon conviction of certain crimes and when the excercising of that right infringes on another person's rights. You may not like this folks, but that is a bedrock legal principle that isn't going away. Emerson was denied his right to bear arms because he was subject to a court order enjoining him from harming an intimate or their children. The order was issued despite the fact the wife admitted he never threatened her or her child, only a friend. The order was nonetheless handed down. Emerson should have been aware of the prohibition because he attested on a 4473 less than a year before that he was not subject to a restraining order that would prohibit possession. The rationale being since he attested to understanding under oath (signing the 4473) he can not claim ignorance. He also chose not to challenge the order - his idiocy. He went before the judge without a lawyer - pretty dumb for a doctor. The judges also cited precedent in saying that if one violates a judges order that is later found to have been spurious you can not be held accoutable for violating the stipulations of the order, but can be held in contempt for fisregarding the judge's order in general. Its not a complete victory, but it didn't take away anything we already had. For those who would argue that it affirms the right to regulate guns, EVERY right is subject to regulation. I challenge you to point to one that isn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:42:28 AM EDT
[#24]
It seems U.S. vs. Miller keeps getting in the way. I guess the ATF is patting themselves on the back for taking his ass out before he could argue the case. If you don't believe me...He was shot repeatedly with multiple 38s. That was standard issue sidearm for police back then. Most Civies used 45s not 38s. Just something to think about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:53:11 AM EDT
[#25]
Well, now I understand why the decision took so long - they had to navigate themselves through a minefield to avoid overturning 70 years of bad law. To me the telling portion of the decision was
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to [blue]privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller.[/blue] However, [red]because of our holding that section 922(g)(8), as applied to Emerson, does not infringe his individual rights under the Second Amendment we will not now further elaborate as to the [size=2]exact scope of all Second Amendment rights.[/size=2][/red] In other words: "There are serious problems with many gun laws that are currently on the books, and [i]we ain't gonna touch 'em![/i]" This decision is a huge step back from the edge of the "slippery slope" - a Federal Circuit Court has declared that 66 years of judicial decisions based on [i]Miller[/i] are flawed because those decisions were based on an incorrect interpretation of what [i]Miller[/i] actually meant. The court has concluded decisively that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is an [b]individual[/b] one, not collective in any way shape or form. And, finally, the court has proclaimed that [i]some[/i] restrictions on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms are [i]not[/i] "infringements", but exactly [i]which[/i] restrictions are not has been left to other courts to decide. Overall, this is a win for us and as much of a win as I could have hoped for. Now the time comes to array our forces, drag out our checkbooks and start fighting those restrictions on a case-by-case basis. I'm a happy camper! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 7:31:27 PM EDT
[#26]
btt
Perhaps this should be thumbtacked for a couple of days? After all, this is the most important decision we've seen regarding our right to keep and bear arms since 1939. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:36:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: snip... It seems some of the better states even, like Texas ban open carry...snip... Texas doesn't ban open carry. Our state constitution, which overrides the CHL law, allows carry in many situations, and does not specify whether you carry concealed or unconcealed. It has been ruled that open carry is fine in those situations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:45:38 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: snip... It seems some of the better states even, like Texas ban open carry...snip... Texas doesn't ban open carry. Our state constitution, which overrides the CHL law, allows carry in many situations, and does not specify whether you carry concealed or unconcealed. It has been ruled that open carry is fine in those situations. Technically the law is written on not allowing it. But because of all the exemptions I'll have to agree with you on that one. Especially since I've seen a list of those exemptions. I wish Florida would adopt a few of those as I really want to be able to carry my Antique Revolver outside my vehicle. I sent a question to the FDLE regarding the open carry law since it says firearms and not deadly weapons under open carry, but then says it exempts Chemical Sprays. WTF, a chemical spray isn't a firearm. I still haven't received a response. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 8:54:56 PM EDT
[#29]
On an interesting side note: I believe the GCA of 1968 was intended to allow persons under the age of consent to be able to buy rifles and those of the age of consent to be able to buy pistols. The saem goes for the NFA which intended any adult to be able to buy NFA weapons. Unfortunately as these laws were written with specific ages rather than saying adults or of consenting age, we are now stuuck with them. In 1968, 18 was considered a child. 21 was the age to vote if I'm not mistaken until 1972. When 18 became the age of suffrage it became the age of consent through most of America except for a few states such as Wyoming and Oklahoma who are 21 and 23. Nowadays 18 would be a rough equivelant of 16.
Had the GCA been altered for modern ages of consent we would allow anyone over 16 to buy a rifle and anyone over 18 to buy a handgun. The same goes for MGs, Silencers, and DDs., which would have been 18. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 9:56:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: It seems U.S. vs. Miller keeps getting in the way. It seems to me the Miller decision will ultimately be a huge asset for us. I regard this Emerson case to be a very big win. I'm not sure just how or when the U.S. Supreme Court will be forced to consider the Second Amendment, but when they do Emerson is going to make it impossible for them to dance around the issue or look the other way and pretend history never happened. Too much has been said now, backed up solidly with lots of historical references, for them to do that. Even Democrat justices will have to agree with the individual rights view now, if any of them are intellectually honest. And once we have that "individual right" Supreme Court ruling in our hand, we will go back and make Miller "put up or shut up" on the military weapons aspect. Sure, the right to bear arms will never be seen by the courts as absolute. Whatever our own personal philosophy might be, the fact is that the courts place limitations on all rights. Free speech doesn't allow you to call out "Fire!" for kicks in a crowded theater, for instance. Arguments about what constitutes due process can and will go on forever; that's a much better place for us to be wrestling than on the edge of the abyss where we have been for so long. This is a big step in the right direction. Ultimately, I believe, the Supreme Court will reach the same conclusion as we see here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 10:01:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: does this ruling mean I can now get a post '86 machine gun? Yes, if you want to be the test case to re-examine the Miller decision. Thanks for volunteering! [;)] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 10:18:54 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Did anyone read what Judge Parker had to say in his dissent to Section V? I think his is the opinion to which other courts will pay attention, and probably rightly so. No doubt the special interests and academics on both sides of this debate will take great interest in the fact that at long last some court has determined (albeit in dicta) that the Second Amendment bestows an individual right. The real issue, however, is the fact that whatever the nature or parameters of the Second Amendment right, be it collective or individual, it is a right subject to reasonable regulation. The debate, therefore, over the nature of the right is misplaced. In the final analysis, whether the right to keep and bear arms is collective or individual is of no legal consequence. It is, as duly noted by the majority opinion, a right subject to reasonable regulation. If determining that Emerson had an individual Second Amendment right that could have been successfully asserted as a defense against the charge of violating § 922(g)(8), then the issue would be cloaked with legal significance. As it stands, it makes no difference. Section 922(g)(8) is simply another example of a reasonable restriction on whatever right is contained in the Second Amendment. ... If the majority was only filling the Federal Reporter with page after page of non-binding dicta there would be no need for me to write separately. As I have said, nothing in this case turns on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, so no court need follow what the majority has said in that regard. Unfortunately, however, the majority's exposition pertains to one of the most hotly-contested issues of the day. By overreaching in the area of Second Amendment law, the majority stirs this controversy without necessity when prudence and respect for stare decisis calls for it to say nothing at all. See Cass R. Sunstein, One Case at a Time: Judicial Minimalism and the Supreme Court 5 (1999)("[A] minimalist path usually--not always, but usually--makes a good deal of sense when the Court is dealing with a constitutional issue of high complexity about which many people feel deeply and on which the nation is divided (on moral or other grounds).") (italics in original). Indeed, in the end, the majority today may have done more harm than good for those who embrace a right to gunownership. The first paragraph seems to be saying, "Sour grapes! Even if it is an individual right, who cares? It's not important, everybody go back to what you were doing and forget about this!" The second paragraph seems to be saying, "We really shouldn't be thinking about scary stuff like this. Ignorance is bliss!" I don't think anybody except the gun control crowd is going to pay much attention to this guy. And see what I mean? This dude is a Clinton appointee and all he can do is whine around the edges like this. If our strongest enemies can't come up with actual arguments against the individual rights stance, we've got it made. [smoke] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/17/2001 10:43:26 PM EDT
[#33]
By the way, I see where the judges in this Emerson case relied heavily on the book, [i]The Origin of the Second Amendment,[/i] by David E. Young.
Mr. Young is not a rich lawyer or on staff at the Cato Institute, as one might expect. Believe it or not, the guy is a park ranger living out in the boonies not far from where I live. I have met him at local gun rights rallies and so forth and have spoken with him on several occasions. He seems like a totally ordinary fellow. I can only imagine how many hours he must have put into reading through mountains of old documents to assemble his book. It must have taken many years and a heck of a lot of coffee. This guy is sort of a quiet hero, to my way of thinking. He did what so many highbrow scholars and historians had failed to do, and probably contributed more to the cause of freedom than 99% of people living today. He deserves our thanks. [USA] |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/18/2001 5:43:27 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: By the way, I see where the judges in this Emerson case relied heavily on the book, [i]The Origin of the Second Amendment,[/i] by David E. Young. Thanks for the cite. I will go out and find this book. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
