Posted: 3/18/2008 3:31:03 PM EDT
|
www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/18/scotus.guns/index.html For those that haven't ventured into GD...I actually saw this a second ago as I looked for articles relating to the latest economic recession information. Completely forgot that the opening arguments were made today. Check out the three videos. The girl who was shot in the Virginia tech shooting made ridiculous arguments. The woman who was speaking about defending her home on the hand made a clear and concise argument. I liked the last comment made by a "security officer" who is tasked to defend government personnel and is armed at work, but isn't trusted to own or have a weapon in his own home. |
Beat me to posting it. It's looking pretty good for gun owners. We'll see when the final opinions are made. apnews.myway.com/article/20080318/D8VG2PR00.html
|
They aren't opening arguments; that was it they are done. The oral arguments are mostly for the lawyers to answer questions the Justices have after reading the briefs.
That was Dick Heller making that comment. Written Transcript Audio is available to download BTW- there are currently 38 threads with Heller in the title in the general forum area. If you are so inclined hold your breath for a few months, it may be late June before we know the result. |
Clement and Gura's statements will make you even more hopeful. It really sounds like the justices want to open the door to MG's as the common issue "arm"... and therefore needed for a militia (the people). It's clear that DC's ban is going down in flames. |
|
Militia created the state, the state did not create the militia and the militia can decide by jury to nullify any state made law. SCOTUS does not decide what individual rights are, they can affirm them or pretend to rule against them but nothing they do ever changes the truth. |
so my thread gets scolded, but not this one  However... Do you think Justice Scalia let out his decision 
Also
|
I love this guy. In a buy you a beer kinda way. And I meant opening statements loosely, as in....facetime with judges. Cmon Phil
|
I think a positive ruling does not affect us much in WA, but a negative ruling would. If anything, hopefully a positive ruling could tighten the leash of congress when they try and do something stupid.
|
All in the wording of their opinion. "it is unconstitutional for a city/state/county/district to have an outright ban on a particular type of arm" could be very good. |
I won't hold me breath, even given favorable wording in the decision, we'd probably need further lawsuits to fix things. |
|
In the past on constitutional issues when looking at interpretting the verbiage the SCOTUS justices have gone so far as to look at dictionaries that were in use at the time of the writing. There are many meanings to the word militia, with my favorite being " all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service". Hopefully that will be the definition that they use. Another suitable one would be the following definition: Militia 1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777). |
Incorrect. The Militias were state militias, organized by the states. That's why it was included in the 2nd.
Correct. No ruling by man will change my natural right to defend myself. |
There were no states how can something that does not exist create something that does exist. The state is a fictional entity formed by the people in order to protect life liberty and property. |
Incorrect. Justice Scalia Says it better then I.
Thusly, the Unrganized Militia consisting of the entire body of the people is far larger and is more influential then the Organized militia (today known as the National Guard), and they do not necessarily fall under the pervue of the state gov. Unorganized militia are just as accessable by the fed. gov as they are by the state gov in times of necessity. Edited to add: I think that with the amount of discussion attached to this case regarding Militias, the true definition of "militia" may very well be finally put to rest in this case. If so, it will be an end to all those ever-so-entertaining Mil vs. Militia threads that we have watched with interest, fear, jubilation, teary eyes, and outright horror.....  |
|
Tench Coxe on the Second Amendment Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms. Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American .. the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, (3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) Alexander White on Arms There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787)Yes the hunting trick was tried back then too That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston Cockrum v. State, quotes about Militia: The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power. Rep. Elbridge Gerry, What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. An instance within the memory of some of this house will show us how our militia may be destroyed. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliment was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that is was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. -- George Mason at the Virginia Ratification Convention, June 14, 1788 The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; [ when called into actual service] a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call. -- Alexander Hamilton in Federalist Paper No. 28 We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. --- Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. Memorial Edition 16:45, Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security. -- Thomas Jefferson, Eighth Annual Message, November 8, 1808 An armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics -- that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe... -- James Madison ( First Inaugural Address, Saturday, March 4, 1809.) |
|
A couple of interesting GD threads. DK-Prof went on Monday to see how many were camping out waiting to get in for the arguements This Board Member was camping out! |
GD thread
Jut absolute proof the SCOTUS is a traitorous body of selfish elitist tyrants. All governments are more or less combinations against the people. . .and as rulers have no more virtue than the ruled. . . the power of government can only be kept within its constituted bounds by the display of a power equal to itself, the collected sentiment of the people. -- Benjamin Franklin Bache, in a Phildelphia Aurora editorial 1794 |
|
Strat- Your thoughts about this video would be appreciated. I like the presentation and message they are sending, and I think it's pretty level headed, detailed information. www.youtube.com/watch?v=peOlqC0YezM |
The U.S.C. is a private contract law, it is not binding on the sovereign people on America, if the actual debates on the constitution and bill of rights are used as the reference then the intent of the law is very clear. Can the servant ( U.S.Gov ) dictate what the authorities and powers over the Master (Sovereign people) ? If you answer yes then that is the definition of tyranny, if you answer no the government is in rebellion and unlawful. The founders stated very clearly the government must never be allowed to have a power monopoly which it has today. All debate and fuss in the world will not change the fact that the rule of law and not men has been lost in America, eventually a small minority sick of tyranny will fight, The SCOTUS case will change very little unless they rule parity of military arms. |
Do you mean to say, am I understanding your position correctly, that past the USC, and original Amendmants, any and all law is corruptive of the process, ergo "illegal"? If so, I find that to be well past rediculous as an argument, as you are then describing a situation that amounts to anarchy. |
I can't believe I'm about to make an argument, somewhat against you, and I actually think in support of Strat.... All laws are controlling, and therefore evil. As are the governments that we allow to control us. Unfotunately they are necessary evils and as long as kept under tight control, not nearly as bad as the alternative that you mentioned. Anarchy won't last for long anyway. That power vacuum will be filled by someone or someones. The warlords in Africa are a perfect example. This government and laws need to be strictly regulated to ensure that they do as little damage to individual rights as is humanly possible. Nothing will be perfect unless (if/when depending on your personal beliefs) the Bible is correct and after armageddon and Christ returns and everyone lives in the heavenly utopia. Something like that anyway, you know what I mean. So, we are accepting a necessary evil, that we are supposed to be keeping tight controls over. Unfortunately as the thousands of federal laws, and regulations that have the force of law, but without any real basis in law, show, we've been allowing the governemnt that we are supposed to be controlling, control us instead. |
To understand it is absolutely necessary to have the same definition/understanding of the words we use. Law as in natural law never changes it is the same yesterday today and tomorrow, code only applies to those that are a party to the contract. The CONstitution has both law and code to it, so parts of it which are real law apply to everyone, other parts or even the main body is code and only applies to those that have a contractual obligation to it. America was founded by pioneers and settlers that came here to be free soon after 1492, these pioneers and settlers had no contract or grants /obligations from the King of England, yes many of the colonies did have grants and contractual obligations with the King of england but that does not give England total dominion over America, the war for independence was fought and won with the Articles of Confederations but even at that it was a small minority that supported and fought the war for independence the majority was either neutral or loyal to england. So to say that the majority supports the CONstitution and the supremacy clause is total nonsense, this country is not about mob rule and the minority sitting still while being plundered because it is the will of the majority, that is not the rule of law. So legislators and judicial officers have a duty to protect life liberty and property within the law, but when ever they act to deprive a sovereign of life liberty or property they are in rebellion and criminals not respected officers, their actions are to be condemned not supported. Pirates and Emperors
|