Jump to content
reloaderguy

Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment And The NRA

Recommended Posts

I’ve seen the email alerts, but had no interest in commenting.

I’ve been working on a strategy with a couple of others to actually bring a Second Amendment case. However, the community in general doesn’t want to hear it.

So, the reason I’ve not bothered to say a word can best be answered by Carl Sagan: “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

As the saying goes, the hour grows late, and the Republic is in grave danger. However, since I was specifically mentioned as the target of a snide remark, I thought I would say something.

This post started when an Amicus Brief for the Kolbe case was posted. There were 6 other petitioners whose claims were dismissed because they had no underlying strategy in place. The court could not deny Kolbe’s suit because he took the steps necessary for the court to be handcuffed on the matter of hearing the suit.

I see no one moving away from the arguments that groups such as the NRA and GOA promote in order to fill their coffers. The overriding question to the Second community is one that I’ve posed many times with but one person able to answer. The question is how do you enforce the law when you’ve abdicated your Constitutional duty to do so?

As a follow-up, do you even have a right when you refuse to enforce it in the long-standing lawful manner? Do you expect those who want you disarmed to relinquish their power when you show no interest in your enumerated authority “to execute the Laws of the Union”?

The general issue is that when the Second is discussed in detail, you find out how many people actually want nothing at all to do with serving the community. They’d much rather argue every conceivable which way to avoid the duty imposed in the statutes.

There is a general lack of understanding as to what was said in Heller. Justice Scalia quoting Thomas Cooley; “Among the other defences to personal liberty should be mentioned the right of the people to keep and bear arms. . . . The alternative to a standing army is ‘a well-regulated militia,’ but this cannot exist unless the people are trained to bearing arms. How far it is in the power of the legislature to regulate this right, we shall not undertake to say, as happily there has been very little occasion to discuss that subject by the courts.” When I read this, I realized, just minutes after reading the decision, that this would be interpreted as a means of regulating firearms out of existence.

The mere discussion of regulating not only a right, but also a basic principle of a government of the People is outlandish and dangerous. The notion comes from a misquote of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater”. What Justice Holmes actually wrote was “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic”. Obviously, you can’t claim a right to cause indiscriminate danger to the lives of others. This regulating a right, a completely false doctrine, is something that even those who profess to be patriots cling to.

However, Justice Scalia also noted that the purpose of the Second was to make sure that Militia could not be disarmed. “The history of the adoption of the Amendment thus describes an overriding concern about the potential threat to state sovereignty that a federal standing army would pose, and a desire to protect the States’ militias as the means by which to guard against that danger. But state militias could not effectively check the prospect of a federal standing army so long as Congress retained the power to disarm them, and so a guarantee against such disarmament was needed. As we explained in Miller: “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” 307 U. S., at 178.

The Second means nothing at all if the public does not adhere to the law, which is imbedded in the body of the Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and Article 2. You cannot change the meaning of the words in the Constitution without an amendment, and the words on this are all able-bodied men, not volunteers. On the subject of the words and meanings, the Court has stated it so many times that it is not disputable. 

“that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary.” Ogden v. Saunders

As noted by George Mason, co-author of the Bill of Rights, Militia is “the whole people”, organized, and armed. Here in lies the real argument that so-called pro-second people fall down on. Once they comprehend the fact that the intent of the Founders was to have “A well regulated Militia” that required the participation of all members of the community, the denials start. There is no dichotomy between the duty of the People to participate in their exercise of Sovereignty, and the right that the Founders enumerated in order to make it impossible for the State to disarm the People. However, the very people who claim to be supporters of the amendment are the most vocal in opposition to its true meaning. They’ll scream about the ‘unorganized militia’, which requires nothing at all from the general public but an excuse. Or they’ll defer to the National Guard, which is a branch of the Army that the Congress granted to the States under Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3, and in no way meets the Constitutional mandates under Section 8, or conforms to the Militia Act.

Revocation of a fundamental aspect of law in order to take power from all the People, and placing it solely in the hands of a select few in tantamount to sedition. The fundamental aspect of which I speak is noted as “necessary to the security of a free State”, and meant to be in the hands of We the People, not some agency of government.

Why deny it?

So, instead of reading the words that our Forefathers debated, and then ratified, today’s pretend patriots would much rather shoot the messenger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/4/2018 at 8:55 PM, Zeke said:

Is the state not us?

No.  The federal court system is independent of the State of NJ and has the power to decide if state law is violative of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. The Supremecy Clause provides that authority.   But the federal District Court, as a trial level tribunal, is bound to follow the decisions of the Third Circuit which is its own intermediate appellate court.  So ANJRPC must lose at the trial level as the District Judge is not going to refuse to follow a binding decision from a higher court.  Theoretically, the Third Circuit could reconsider its holding in Drake in light of Wrenn but I think you or I have a better chance of getting a carry permit under the current justifiable need standard than that happening. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheShootist:

Damn...!
Look who reappeared with his "ball" and wants to play again in the NJGF playground.
Interesting post....and I am accused of being verbose....?
Now if you had any semblance of irony, you would have posted your response one week ago today, which was Good Friday.
That way at least we could celebrate your good timing to celebrate the "raising of the dead"!.

I have already made all of the points that I intend to make regarding my beliefs and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as well as the SCOTUS, so I will let others discuss your points, if they so desire.

@Mrs. Peel:  Better sharpen your keyboard fingers.....    Let the games begin!

AVB-AMG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AVB-AMG said:

@TheShootist:

Damn...!
Look who reappeared with his "ball" and wants to play again in the NJGF playground.
Interesting post....and I am accused of being verbose....?
Now if you had any semblance of irony, you would have posted your response one week ago today, which was Good Friday.
That way at least we could celebrate your good timing to celebrate the "raising of the dead"!.

I have already made all of the points that I intend to make regarding my beliefs and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as well as the SCOTUS, so I will let others discuss your points, if they so desire.

@Mrs. Peel:  Better sharpen your keyboard fingers.....    Let the games begin!

AVB-AMG

Now, now, AVB... if I can deal with YOUR posts, I am sure I can deal with the Shootist's! :D Hell, I'm not exactly succinct myself... let's be honest. I'd be last to accuse someone else of being too long-winded, LOL!

I'm actually glad he returned. I'm sure we all just got off on the wrong foot. Everyone is allowed to express themselves... and I personally like when people have ideas that challenge my way of thinking. That said, it usually works best if a new poster hangs out for awhile, lets people get to know him/her, treats everyone with a measure of goodwill and respect, and gives their ideas time to percolate in everyone's noggins. Then, the readers will either accept or reject those ideas, as is their right. But, at least there's a good flow of ideas that way. It makes the Forums interesting to have some intelligent, sometimes oppositional viewpoints!  This should be interesting!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional based on that decision.  In addition to “common use” He specifically goes into more detail on the purpose for that notion and how it relates to the unorganized militia. He does do some mental gymnastics to avoid using Heller as a means to repeal NFA and that is the basis for his “dangerous and unusual” statement.  Other than that he goes into detail on the types of restrictions are allowable (felons, mentally ill, etc) but none of them involve the design or cosmetic appearance of the firearm.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional based on that decision.  In addition to “common use” He specifically goes into more detail on the purpose for that notion and how it relates to the unorganized militia. He does do some mental gymnastics to avoid using Heller as a means to repeal NFA and that is the basis for his “dangerous and unusual” statement.  Other than that he goes into detail on the types of restrictions are allowable (felons, mentally ill, etc) but none of them involve the design or cosmetic appearance of the firearm.  

Nailed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AVB-AMG said:


I have already made all of the points that I intend to make regarding my beliefs and interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

This, right here, pisses me off.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to understand this issue. The 2A was put in place so the federal government could not impose tyranny on it's Citizens. 
Yet somehow the states were given power to restrict your 2A rights as they see fit. Then "local government" are allowed to impose even more restrictions if they so choose. So what would stop state and local governments from doing the federal governments bidding. I thought the 2A was put in place to defend against a potential tyrannical government - I don't remember it being only about a "federal" tyrannical government - tyrannical governments exist at all levels.

It seems the same people that want to disarm us are the same people we were given firearms to defend against in the first place.


 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional based on that decision.  In addition to “common use” He specifically goes into more detail on the purpose for that notion and how it relates to the unorganized militia. He does do some mental gymnastics to avoid using Heller as a means to repeal NFA and that is the basis for his “dangerous and unusual” statement.  Other than that he goes into detail on the types of restrictions are allowable (felons, mentally ill, etc) but none of them involve the design or cosmetic appearance of the firearm.  

Limits on any type of weapon that would be used to fulfill the Duty recognized in Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and the State statutes are unconstitutional. All those regulations need to be removed immediately, but they will not be if we cling to the 'individual rights theory', and ignore the myriad of documentation as to why we have Militia, and what its proper Constitutional definition is. 

That is what I'm working towards, but when someone says "I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional..." I can see that there will be absolutely no help coming from the so-called pro-2nd community. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Paulie Buffo said:

I'm trying to understand this issue. The 2A was put in place so the federal government could not impose tyranny on it's Citizens. 
Yet somehow the states were given power to restrict your 2A rights as they see fit. Then "local government" are allowed to impose even more restrictions if they so choose. So what would stop state and local governments from doing the federal governments bidding. I thought the 2A was put in place to defend against a potential tyrannical government - I don't remember it being only about a "federal" tyrannical government - tyrannical governments exist at all levels.

It seems the same people that want to disarm us are the same people we were given firearms to defend against in the first place.


 

The 2nd was indeed put in place to prevent the central government from disarming Militia. 

Militia is a State institution that is controlled by the People themselves. If you read some of the documentation around the subject, you'll find that Militia is beholding only to the rule of law. So, if either the federal or state governments create an unconstitutional act, such as disarming Militia, there is no vehicle for it to be enforced, and in truth, the Militia can take it upon itself to arrest "upon probable cause" anyone who has engaged in the violation of the oath of office.

There is NO IMMUNITY from the authority of Militia.

The Founders hoped that the People would not become ambivalent, or I'm sorry to say completely ignorant of the rule of law. At the time, even dirt farmers understood that this was a nation of popular sovereignty. Sadly, today there are very, very few who understand the basic foundation of this Republic, so much so, that even those who should know better use the word democracy to denigrate our principles, and act as if the State has any authority that cannot be removed by the People.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder why it is that the so-called pro-2nd community is so docile? If you want action, and you want to stop the tyranny, you adhere to the law as the Founders instituted. You don't run from it, but rather you ban together ask the pertinent questions, and point to questionable acts.
 
For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a new war cry coming from the anti-gun crowd about weapons of war, along with the standard of why do you need an AR. 
 
My answer to the question that the anti-2nd crowd asks "Why do you need an AR"? The simple fact that you're here attempting to coerce those who have sworn an oath to "secure these rights" means that I must be prepared for a government that will be populated with little tyrants such as yourself. You've declared a war on my right to self-defense against anyone, agency, or group who claims that they have some sort of authority over me. The fact that the same actions of the genocidal maniacs of the last century are alive and well in people like you are all the reasons I need to own a weapon of war.   
 
 
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

The 2nd was indeed put in place to prevent the central government from disarming Militia. 

Militia is a State institution that is controlled by the People themselves. If you read some of the documentation around the subject, you'll find that Militia is beholding only to the rule of law. So, if either the federal or state governments create an unconstitutional act, such as disarming Militia, there is no vehicle for it to be enforced, and in truth, the Militia can take it upon itself to arrest "upon probable cause" anyone who has engaged in the violation of the oath of office.

There is NO IMMUNITY from the authority of Militia.

The Founders hoped that the People would not become ambivalent, or I'm sorry to say completely ignorant of the rule of law. At the time, even dirt farmers understood that this was a nation of popular sovereignty. Sadly, today there are very, very few who understand the basic foundation of this Republic, so much so, that even those who should know better use the word democracy to denigrate our principles, and act as if the State has any authority that cannot be removed by the People.  

 

So as I am reading and if I am understanding your thoughts and interpretations correctly - 

You interpret that there is no individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, without being dutifully engage in state militia activities, that you believe are codified in the founding documents.

You interpret that there is no standing for an 'unorganized militia', and that no such thing exists.  Hence, that the individual mandate of said right is not in line with what the founding fathers intended and has been written.  Assuming that this is the case that there was never an intent of individual rights to bear arms,. unless engaged in militia activities for the state.

Assuming I am not out of my mind - I may be - what happens then in this assumption, when a state decides it has no use of a 'state militia' and as such, the right of the people to bear arms can be usurped and are null end void as there are no state militia activities for all those able bodied men to be part of.

Also assuming this is what you are saying what about those who fall outside of the able bodied men, say those post 60 years of age - are there rights to bear arms somehow all of a sudden null and void?

1 minute ago, TheShootist said:
I wonder why it is that the so-called pro-2nd community is so docile? If you want action, and you want to stop the tyranny, you adhere to the law as the Founders instituted. You don't run from it, but rather you ban together ask the pertinent questions, and point to questionable acts.
 
For anyone who hasn't noticed, there is a new war cry coming from the anti-gun crowd about weapons of war, along with the standard of why do you need an AR. 
 
My answer to the question that the anti-2nd crowd asks "Why do you need an AR"? The simple fact that you're here attempting to coerce those who have sworn an oath to "secure these rights" means that I must be prepared for a government that will be populated with little tyrants such as yourself. You've declared a war on my right to self-defense against anyone, agency, or group who claims that they have some sort of authority over me. The fact that the same actions of the genocidal maniacs of the last century are alive and well in people like you are all the reasons I need to own a weapon of war.   
 
 

Your last statement makes a lot of sense and is in my opinion a very thorough and truthful response.

Share this post


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

Limits on any type of weapon that would be used to fulfill the Duty recognized in Article 1, Section 8, Cls. 15&16, and the State statutes are unconstitutional. All those regulations need to be removed immediately, but they will not be if we cling to the 'individual rights theory', and ignore the myriad of documentation as to why we have Militia, and what its proper Constitutional definition is. 

That is what I'm working towards, but when someone says "I don’t know how anyone could read Scalia’s opinion on Heller and not conclude that things like Mag limits and AWB are not unconstitutional..." I can see that there will be absolutely no help coming from the so-called pro-2nd community. 

I mucked up the double-negative. My opinion is Mag limits and AWB ARE unconstitutional based on Scalia’s opinion in Heller. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, USRifle30Cal said:

So as I am reading and if I am understanding your thoughts and interpretations correctly - 

You interpret that there is no individual right of the people to keep and bear arms, without being dutifully engage in state militia activities, that you believe are codified in the founding documents.

You interpret that there is no standing for an 'unorganized militia', and that no such thing exists.  Hence, that the individual mandate of said right is not in line with what the founding fathers intended and has been written.  Assuming that this is the case that there was never an intent of individual rights to bear arms,. unless engaged in militia activities for the state.

Assuming I am not out of my mind - I may be - what happens then in this assumption, when a state decides it has no use of a 'state militia' and as such, the right of the people to bear arms can be usurped and are null end void as there are no state militia activities for all those able bodied men to be part of.

Also assuming this is what you are saying what about those who fall outside of the able bodied men, say those post 60 years of age - are there rights to bear arms somehow all of a sudden null and void?

Your last statement makes a lot of sense and is in my opinion a very thorough and truthful response.

Scalia’s opinion in Heller is very clear the role of the unorganized Militia.  It is not a state-run and organized militia but the ability of a significant portion of the population to be ready and able to be called to arms to defend the state or nation against threats (including the state or nation itself). 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, voyager9 said:

I mucked up the double-negative. My opinion is Mag limits and AWB ARE unconstitutional based on Scalia’s opinion in Heller. 

What I quoted from Heller was done so for a specific reason. I suggest you re-read Heller because the conclusion you've drawn is incorrect. 

The supposed pro-2nd community keeps going back to a decision that did not take place they way the look at it through rose colored glasses.

 

 

Share this post


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

What I quoted from Heller was done so for a specific reason. I suggest you re-read Heller because the conclusion you've drawn is incorrect. 

The supposed pro-2nd community keeps going back to a decision that did not take place the way the look at it through rose colored glasses.

 

 

Ok. Either I’m an idiot or your not very good at explaining things. Either way I don’t understand what your talking about.  You write a huge post with multiple quotes about a lengthy opinion and expect everyone to just get it.   

You also reply to my first post saying that you disagree and that those things are unconstitutional. I revise my response and agree and you post again saying I’m still wrong. Wtf. 

And Scalia goes well into detail about how 2A is an individual right based on the “unorganized militia”.  That’s not the pro gun side clinging. That what he said. 

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...