Jump to content
reloaderguy

Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

Recommended Posts

This is interesting. Paging @TheShootist. What does the following mean ?

------------------

17-127
KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.
The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a
brief as
amici curiae
is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is denied.
---------------
So what good is granting amici curiae when the certiorari is denied ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

perhaps i have been misunderstanding his argument?

I thought I addressed this, maybe it was someone else.

Years before the ratification of the Constitution, about 150, Militia were organized throughout the colonies. They were defined as all able-bodied men, generally from 17-60 depending on the state. All others, with the exception of some public officials and certain merchants whose business would be essential for continuity, would contribute in a fashion.

All able-bodied men, unless exempt by statute, would be required to keep and bear the arms of a soldier as the statues defined; rifle, pistol, sword, tomahawk, and at least 20 ball, patches, and a pound of powder. If an able-bodied man could not afford a rifle, (not a musket), he would either be lent one from the Militia armory, or his master, that is to say his employer, would purchase, or give him one. Women would perform such tasks as making patches, gunpowder when necessary, and anything else required to maintain a functional Militia. 

As you read through this you will note that it encompasses the entire community in some manner. As Patrick Henry stated when confronted with the prospect of giving the federal government the only authority to arm the People; “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”  

The 2nd Amendment does not simply define a right, but rather a duty imposed to guarantee all right to be "unalienable."

Here is an article I wrote that might interest you; Stand Your Ground

BTW, I've written several more on the topic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

Kolbe cert denied

Yes I know. So now is a good time to address the issue of bringing a case before the Supreme Court. jackandjill has asked me this a number of times.

Article III defines the duties of the court; Section 2 reads in part, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." Note that it does not read some "Cases", but rather "all Cases." 

The Court was required to hear "all Cases", but what they did was to convince congress to write a statute that allowed the Court to pick and choose. The enacting of such a statute is of course a violation of Article V because they are changing a tenet of the Constitution without proceeding with the amendment process. 

In order for a case to go forward today, the justices in favor would have to convince the others that it is a note-worthy case that needs to be heard. The respondents in Kolbe obviously convince the Court that there was no conflict between the 4th, 7th, and 9th circuit rulings on the subject. I'm also sure that with the rash of mass shootings, the Court had no interest in taking on Kolbe, or for that matter any case that they might have to find in favor of We the People. 

Since the Militia argument, if brought properly, were to succeed, there would be a complete change in the dynamic of the gun control debate. Such an argument is NOT supported by the NRA for a number of reasons, all not in the best interest of you and me. If I Were The XO Of the NRA. I hope you will read it and pass it around.

However, in order to bring the Militia argument, there needs to be a solid base of support and an attempt by a significant number of people to not only revitalize, but to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the government in general has acted in a manner completely repugnant to our Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. 

As should be obvious by the comments here, and if you've gone to other forums, there is a resistance to acknowledge the first 13 words of the 2nd as a significant part of the fundamental aspect of a Republic based on Popular Sovereignty.

I would like to note that I've been permanently banned from a couple of so-called pro-gun sites for making the arguments I do here today. So if you want to know why I and Dr. Vieira don't get together and bring such a case, its because those, such as Gun For Hire owner Anthony, want nothing at all to do with something they simply refuse to understand. 

I'll leave you with a picture of the future of the 21st Century based on history, and our own complicity in being duped; Your Child Has Been Murdered

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

This is interesting. Paging @TheShootist. What does the following mean ?

------------------

17-127
KOLBE, STEPHEN V., ET AL. V. HOGAN, GOV. OF MD, ET AL.
The motion of Edwin Vieira, Jr., et al. for leave to file a
brief as
amici curiae
is granted. The petition for a writ of
certiorari is denied.
---------------
So what good is granting amici curiae when the certiorari is denied ?

Beats the heck out of me.

I posted a response to voyager9 who first noted the denial. It will answer some of the questions you've asked of me. 

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

Summabitch!

I posted a response to voyager9.

Please read it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

No. We need you, and the entire community. I just posted a response to the Kolbe matter. 

It is in response to voyager9, who posted the denial. 

So what are me and the entire community to do if the court won't hear the cases or rule in our favor?  No, I stick by what I said, we need that 5th justice.  That doesn't mean that we can't still be activists.  Not sure why you would see it as a dichotomy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all of the courts determination in Kolbe, but suffice it to say that they were working along lines that I warned would come back to bite us on the behind as soon as I read the Heller decision.

Again, the plaintiffs spent a lot of money to loose a case that they had little chance of winning in this current political climate. Once again the NRA, with its insistence on the individual rights theory plays right along with governments notion that it can RULE, and We the People can do nothing more than sit back, and take it despite the words in our first law, "to alter or to abolish it."

You do realize that with this decision, the NJ legislature will go full force as soon as Murphy gets in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I didn't read all of the courts determination in Kolbe, but suffice it to say that they were working along lines that I warned would come back to bite us on the behind as soon as I read the Heller decision.

Again, the plaintiffs spent a lot of money to loose a case that they had little chance of winning in this current political climate. Once again the NRA, with its insistence on the individual rights theory plays right along with governments notion that it can RULE, and We the People can do nothing more than sit back, and take it despite the words in our first law, "to alter or to abolish it."

You do realize that with this decision, the NJ legislature will go full force as soon as Murphy gets in?

Nobody here is stupid, nor are they going to broadcast 1 if by land, 2 if by sea, on the internet. That’s your hook

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jackandjill said:

Why not Dr. Vieira himself or thousands of oathkeepers or even better, someone from a State that already has constitutional carry and very pro-2A, has a State constitution with clear 2A verbiage, so one doesn't have to engage in legal fight against a Nazi State like NJ and go directly against  Federal laws ?

Is Dr. Vieira ready to argue a case on pro-bono basis ?

In my humble opinion, it could not get any worse than starting with NJ for something like this.

@Mrs. Peel is waiting for me to adopt her (thats an inside joke she knows :-)) , but I would donate some money and time if Dr. Vieira were to bring a serious case to SCOTUS.

A few years ago I was working with an attorney to start the ball rolling on a very important case that effects every citizen. We got no support to even put up a dime in a state where it would have been a shoe-in.

We don't need money beyond postage right now. We need a campaign that says to SCOTUS, sorry but either you do what you're suppose to, or we will take up the Committee's of Safety as our Founders were forced to do prior to the revolution. 

We need to fire another shot heard round the world, and its got to happen with people who understand the issue. CCW states don't recognize the issue in its entirety. CCW requires that you ask permission of the state. How does that comport with what I've been saying here?

Now you can argue more points, but is the truth of the matter that you didn't understand the first 13 words of the 2nd, or the fact that every state has militia statutes to begin with as a requirement of the Union? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Darrenf said:

So what are me and the entire community to do if the court won't hear the cases or rule in our favor?  No, I stick by what I said, we need that 5th justice.  That doesn't mean that we can't still be activists.  Not sure why you would see it as a dichotomy.

I posted a response to voyager9. Did you read it?

There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court. If a case comes before the court and is ruled 5 to 4, what does that say about the justices who've been selected to occupy such as important seat.

Law is not opinion. Law is fact. If you read the works of those who opposed the Constitution, they warned that the judiciary would be a dangerous body, and eventually consolidate all power to the central government. Take a good look around you. 

If we brought a case such as Kolbe before 9 firm supporters of the 2nd amendment, what do you, in your naivete, think they will decide? The case was bad to begin it as it relied on a bunch of mumbo-jumbo from Heller.

Do you understand that a right cannot be regulated in any fashion? And yet that's what was stated in Heller. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I posted a response to voyager9. Did you read it?

There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court. If a case comes before the court and is ruled 5 to 4, what does that say about the justices who've been selected to occupy such as important seat.

Law is not opinion. Law is fact. If you read the works of those who opposed the Constitution, they warned that the judiciary would be a dangerous body, and eventually consolidate all power to the central government. Take a good look around you. 

If we brought a case such as Kolbe before 9 firm supporters of the 2nd amendment, what do you, in your naivete, think they will decide? The case was bad to begin it as it relied on a bunch of mumbo-jumbo from Heller.

Do you understand that a right cannot be regulated in any fashion? And yet that's what was stated in Heller. 

The FACT that you think law is not opinion tells me all I need to know about whether to listen to you anymore on this.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

A few years ago I was working with an attorney to start the ball rolling on a very important case that effects every citizen. We got no support to even put up a dime in a state where it would have been a shoe-in.

We don't need money beyond postage right now. We need a campaign that says to SCOTUS, sorry but either you do what you're suppose to, or we will take up the Committee's of Safety as our Founders were forced to do prior to the revolution. 

We need to fire another shot heard round the world, and its got to happen with people who understand the issue. CCW states don't recognize the issue in its entirety. CCW requires that you ask permission of the state. How does that comport with what I've been saying here?

Now you can argue more points, but is the truth of the matter that you didn't understand the first 13 words of the 2nd, or the fact that every state has militia statutes to begin with as a requirement of the Union? 

Who said anything about picking a CCW state ? NH is Constitutional Carry, no "permission required".  The way they tax, tells me someone up there actually understands Constitution. I am not sure how picking a State like NJ actually helps anybody's cause. If you couldn't get any support from a shoe-in State, how do you expect to get support in NJ ?

I get it, you think and repeat that no-one, other than select few (or is it TWO people in total?) understand the 13 words. If you really believe that assertion, then you got your answer - Not Happening Anytime Soon.

I am not going to highlight it, but ONE sentence in particular in your response tells me why NJ2AS (and other organizations) ran in the other direction.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jackandjill said:

Who said anything about picking a CCW state ? NH is Constitutional Carry, no "permission required".  The way they tax, tells me someone up there actually understands Constitution. I am not sure how picking a State like NJ actually helps anybody's cause. If you couldn't get any support from a shoe-in State, how do you expect to get support in NJ ?

I get it, you think and repeat that no-one, other than select few (or is it TWO people in total?) understand the 13 words. If you really believe that assertion, then you got your answer - Not Happening Anytime Soon.

I am not going to highlight it, but ONE sentence in particular in your response tells me why NJ2AS (and other organizations) ran in the other direction.

And you just made the point. No one wants to actually do anything, but sit back and wait to the sky falls.

I don't live in NH, and neither do you. We live here in NJ, and this is where I want to take up the battle. With the resistance here, what make you think anyone in NH understands the full context of the duty to keep and bear arms> 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

And you just made the point. No one wants to actually do anything, but sit back and wait to the sky falls.

I don't live in NH, and neither do you. We live here in NJ, and this is where I want to take up the battle. With the resistance here, what make you think anyone in NH understands the full context of the duty to keep and bear arms> 

Sorry, I see you are still dancing around the issue. What is stopping YOU from bringing a case as plaintiff and Dr. Vieira arguing it on pro-bono basis ? What do you need ?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I would like to note that I've been permanently banned from a couple of so-called pro-gun sites for making the arguments I do here today. So if you want to know why I and Dr. Vieira don't get together and bring such a case, its because those, such as Gun For Hire owner Anthony, want nothing at all to do with something they simply refuse to understand. 

I don't know you from Adam. All I know is 1) what I see (you joined here less than a week ago, correct? And you've directed us several times towards your publications) and 2) what you have told us (see paragraph above as one example). 

You "may" well know far more than me about our legal framework and about the 2A specifically. I think your argument is an interesting one and I will take more time this week to peruse your site more carefully. I strive to be open-minded to all arguments.

Yet, common sense (which I do have, in abundance) tells me that tackling the establishment on such a controversial issue as gun rights and successfully waging a legal battle all the way to SCOTUS probably takes many skills. One of the most basic would be an ability to make your case to potential 2A supporters (without telegraphing impatience) in order to engage/win them over to your point of view. 

You've already shown a wee bit of impatience in this thread. You've also apparently ruffled so many feathers elsewhere that you're getting banned from other 2A websites. To boot, you're on here casting shade on another individual (but in an indirect manner so he doesn't even know he's being trashed online). All of that gives me great pause. I'm not saying I'm disregarding your legal argument, not at all. I am saying that after only a handful of posts, I'm already starting to question your approach. 

You may be one of those perpetually rebellious souls that views being banned from sites as an accomplishment of some sort - a twisted point of pride? Whereas I just see it as a failure to communicate effectively. Food for thought.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jackandjill said:

Sorry, I see you are still dancing around the issue. What is stopping YOU from bringing a case as plaintiff and Dr. Vieira arguing it on pro-bono basis ? What do you need ?

 

There are a couple of states where the militia issue is being pushed by some gun owners. It's been it the works for several years. The problem's that I know of are this; the legislature keeps rejecting the bills, and unless you have a court that wants to take the issue its not going anywhere without public support.

I've contacted a friend in one of those states who is at the forefront. I asked him for details. I've also asked a friend who is an attorney for a prescription of what we need at this point.

As soon as they come back, I'll give you what you want to hear. Although I'm perplexed that in NJ where we are far more at risk than NH, you don't want to take up the action here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

I don't know you from Adam. All I know is 1) what I see (you joined here less than a week ago, correct? And you've directed us several times towards your publications) and 2) what you have told us (see paragraph above as one example). 

You "may" well know far more than me about our legal framework and about the 2A specifically. I think your argument is an interesting one and I will take more time this week to peruse your site more carefully. I strive to be open-minded to all arguments.

Yet, common sense (which I do have, in abundance) tells me that tackling the establishment on such a controversial issue as gun rights and successfully waging a legal battle all the way to SCOTUS probably takes many skills. One of the most basic would be an ability to make your case to potential 2A supporters (without telegraphing impatience) in order to engage/win them over to your point of view. 

You've already shown a wee bit of impatience in this thread. You've also apparently ruffled so many feathers elsewhere that you're getting banned from other 2A websites. To boot, you're on here casting shade on another individual (but in an indirect manner so he doesn't even know he's being trashed online). All of that gives me great pause. I'm not saying I'm disregarding your legal argument, not at all. I am saying that after only a handful of posts, I'm already starting to question your approach. 

You may be one of those perpetually rebellious souls that views being banned from sites as an accomplishment of some sort - a twisted point of pride? Whereas I just see it as a failure to communicate effectively. Food for thought.

I've been making the argument to people in the 2nd community for about 20 years. I was kicked off of those forums when I was nice, and when we had plenty of time to win the battle. I explained the entirety of the right to keep and bear arms, but the fact of the matter is that propaganda on the subject is so embedded in the American mindset that some of the participants became apoplectic at the mere mention of Militia. 

We are loosing ground on a theory that should be obvious does not cut it. Am I impatient? Absolutely! Do I "cast shade"? Again absolutely!

I've contacted a few people I know who have been working along this line for years, and they all face the same problems. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the Individual Rights theory is openly accepted when it has little historical or lawful documentation to support it? 

When the battle is for all the marbles, and it is, because our children will have to live with our failures, I want to know why it isn't obvious to those who have a vested interest in this very subject to open their minds, and step out of a box that the SC just put another nail in with their decision to decline Kolbe?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheShootist said:

I've been making the argument to people in the 2nd community for about 20 years. I was kicked off of those forums when I was nice, and when we had plenty of time to win the battle. I explained the entirety of the right to keep and bear arms, but the fact of the matter is that propaganda on the subject is so embedded in the American mindset that some of the participants became apoplectic at the mere mention of Militia.  Sorry, but these statements are a tad difficult for me to believe.

We are loosing ground on a theory that should be obvious does not cut it. Am I impatient? Absolutely! Do I "cast shade"? Again absolutely! Ok, well now... at least there's some honesty! Thank you.

I've contacted a few people I know who have been working along this line for years, and they all face the same problems. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to why the Individual Rights theory is openly accepted when it has little historical or lawful documentation to support it?  I don't know. It's a fair question. Perhaps because it better aligns with the American culture of rugged individualism? Coupled with the fact that governments (even - or particularly? -  one created by revolutionaries) are necessarily nervous at the thought of armed insurrection and have been happy to bury that element over the years. Again, I don't know.

When the battle is for all the marbles, and it is, because our children will have to live with our failures, I want to know why it isn't obvious to those who have a vested interest in this very subject to open their minds, and step out of a box that the SC just put another nail in with their decision to decline Kolbe?  Ummm, maybe your approach is one element to consider? Again, who joins a forum and starts trashing people in less than a week? Yeah, yeah... I know... you say you've got 20 years in, etc. - so for YOU, maybe your patience is all run out. But, to me (us), you're a new voice here. And that wasn't the wisest strategy, IMHO... that's all I'm saying. If you can't see that... what can I say? I'll still look through your site, consider  your argument, etc.... but you're making it a very steep climb to come over to your side. Why are you doing that? Excuse the expression, but "you're shooting yourself in the foot".

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Mrs. Peel said:

 

I'll start with your last statement. I had asked a few friends to post an article referring to a film that James Jaeger is putting together, and one did on this forum. The response was not kind, as a matter of fact I found the comment on Dr. Vieira to be at best unkind, which is when I decided to join. All the friend did was post an article, and point to Dr. Edwin Vieira who has written more on the topic than anyone I've ever come across. I had no intention of posting here, but I saw the same comments you get from people who know only what they're told of the topic. I will note that there have been a few on here that were able to digest what I wrote.

"Sorry, but these statements are a tad difficult for me to believe." As difficult as they may seem to you, they are nonetheless true. Would you like to go on other forums and explain the entirety of the DUTY to keep and bear arms, along with the right that the smallest and simplest part of the rubric created by the Founders? Let me put it to you this way. Since 911, there have been 2 MILLION people who have served in the armed forces out of a nation of over 300 MILLION, or about 0.006%. You would think that having been attacked there would be more zeal for able-bodied men to enlist. Well when you tell people who believe that they support the 2nd amendment that it actually requires you to get out and train a few times a year, the dissent begins. I happen to be a veteran, but even at my age, which is past the age required, I'm willing to go out and train, and help train others. 

I'd like to add a segment from an article on Militia to make a point. "Samuel Whittemore was born in England and came to the colonies as an officer in His Majesty’s Dragoons. After his time in the military he decided to stay here where he bought a farm, and was living out his life as the fighting broke out on the Nineteenth of April. On that day, at nearly Eighty years of age, he mustered with the Militia. As the battle unfolded and others retreated to reload and fire again Samuel stood his ground. He rose and fired his musket, killing one of the soldiers. He drew his two pistols and at point blank range fired. Two more soldiers fell. Samuel did not have the time to reload, but instead drew his saber and began fighting off the bayonet attacks from the regulars. Shot twice and stabbed more than a dozen times, Samuel’s courageous stand was followed by Eighteen more years of life, and the proud claim that if he had to do it again he most certainly would." Whittemore had joined every able-bodied man in the community, compare that to 0.006%.

"I don't know. It's a fair question. Perhaps because it better aligns with the American culture of rugged individualism? Coupled with the fact that governments (even - or particularly? -  one created by revolutionaries) are necessarily nervous at the thought of armed insurrection and have been happy to bury that element over the years. Again, I don't know." Militia is, or at least if we didn't allow government to bury the element, was mandatory on the entire community. Individualism is a mindset, but when this country started and prospered, community was what mattered. We were a Christian nation wherein if a neighbor was in need the community helped. 

I'm not sure about your thoughts on a nervous government since our first law, and the doctrine under which this nation started clearly states "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..." The men who incorporated Militia into the Constitution simply recognized the body, it did not create it, but rather wrote into the Constitution the means of making the discipline uniform, and the ability "to alter or to abolish" a fixture that was defined with the Magna Carta. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...