Guns OK but barely

[85Sooner]

5-4 ruling on the ability to own handguns by the Supreme Court.

n a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

HEY ASSWIPE STEVENS! That is precisely what they were doing. The guns are to protect us from YOU and an over- reaching Government you elitest dip****

Lock and Load folks

[jkjsooner]

5-4 ruling on the ability to own handguns by the Supreme Court.

n a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

HEY ASSWIPE STEVENS! That is precisely what they were doing. The guns are to protect us from YOU and an over- reaching Government you elitest dip****

Lock and Load folks


Who decides that the government is over-reaching? So anytime they do something that I don't agree with I can shoot back? Who gets to decide what type of rights deserve to be protected with firearms?

[r5TPsooner]

Our judges and politicians are so outta touch. They all need a taste of reality Harlem or Watts style.

[Widescreen]

Who gets to decide what type of rights deserve to be protected with firearms?

The person with the gun. Next.

[olevetonahill]

Who decides that the government is over-reaching? So anytime they do something that I don't agree with I can shoot back? Who gets to decide what type of rights deserve to be protected with firearms?

Read the Preamble ;)

[SoonerInKCMO]

Who gets to decide what type of rights deserve to be protected with firearms?


The person with the gun. Next.

Sweet. I think the executive branch overstepped its bounds with warrantless wire-tapping. Should I go shoot up the White House?

[NormanPride]

Sweet. I think the executive branch overstepped its bounds with warrantless wire-tapping. Should I go shoot up the White House?

If you have a big enough group of people behind you, you have every right. And the forefathers would have encouraged it.

[olevetonahill]

If you have a big enough group of people behind you, you have every right. And the forefathers would have encouraged it.

KInda LIke sayin
Be Ready for One Hell Of a Tea Partey !:D

[SoonerInKCMO]

**** that. I don't have a fighter jet with nuclear missiles - I'm outgunned.

[olevetonahill]

**** that. I don't have a fighter jet with nuclear missiles - I'm outgunned.

Nor did the Minute Men have the Equal to the what the English had.
But they Struggled and won US our Freedom . Not to Be given up Lightly

[BillyBall]

The ban on handguns has worked out really well here in Chicago.

[skycat]

Nor did the Minute Men have the Equal to the what the English had.
But they Struggled and won US our Freedom . Not to Be given up Lightly

Whose side do you think the French navy would be on this time?

[jkjsooner]

By the way, when they rule that I can carry a firearm into the SCOTUS building then I'll give them credit for being consistent. Otherwise, I want them to admit lines are drawn and it's merely a matter of where you draw them.

[skycat]

By the way, when they rule that I can carry a firearm into the SCOTUS building then I'll give them credit for being consistent. Otherwise, I want them to admit lines are drawn and it's merely a matter of where you draw them.

I think the majority pretty much did that.

[jkjsooner]

Whose side do you think the French navy would be on this time?

These guy's worldview won't allow them to understand that the French was ciritical in us winning our freedoms....

[Fugue]

I think the majority pretty much did that.

yep

[olevetonahill]

Whose side do you think the French navy would be on this time?

Guess we as Freeedom Lovers Might Look to the Chicoms Or Ruskies .
The Point Is to be able to
OVER THROW and Oppresive Gov.
Aint that what the Preamble says ?

[jkjsooner]

I think the majority pretty much did that.

Okay, you can wake up now.

[skycat]

“Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

What's that besides line drawing?

[skycat]

Guess we as Freeedom Lovers Might Look to the Chicoms Or Ruskies .
The Point Is to be able to
OVER THROW and Oppresive Gov.
Aint that what the Preamble says ?

Pretty much.

I was just trying to make teh funny.

[jkjsooner]

What's that besides line drawing?

That's my point. The difference isn't as black and white as you all pretend. The difference is where you draw the line. (Even DC allowed some guns prior to this.)

You all act as if there's a black and white and fail to recognize that all the justices drew their own line somewhere in the gray area.

Quite honestly, Scalias comments pretty explicitly left open the possibility of regulations that would make hardened NRA members cringe. That surprised me.

[shaun4411]

i agree with the ruling. we have the right to bear arms, but like any right, it isnt absolute and it is within reason, and goes with the changes in society. some things that were applicable 200 years ago are not necessarly applicable now. the general right to bear arms, but within reason. holding it in a holster walking about town like the old west days isnt going to pass. these days you have to prove responsibility. (be a law enforcement officer, have a permit). the people who would use guns to commit crimes will use them regardless of their legality. those who would use them for personal defense will use them to protect themselves. yes, there is a standard deviation of those that will be more suseptible to commiting crime because of having a gun; this is why we have minimum standards for owning, or actively posessing one outside of your home.

[skycat]

That's your point.

Wait, what?

I thought that the antecedent to "them" in this post:


By the way, when they rule that I can carry a firearm into the SCOTUS building then I'll give them credit for being consistent. Otherwise, I want them to admit lines are drawn and it's merely a matter of where you draw them.

referred to SCOTUS. Which is the only thing that makes sense, as they're the only ones that made a ruling here. But, on the other hand, it doesn't make sense, because you said you wanted "them" to admit that they were line drawing. But when pointed out is exactly what they did, you claim that was your point.

And besides that, how in the wide, wide world of sports can you lump me into a group of "You all" that sees this is a black and white subject, when I was the one that pointed out the actual line drawing that SCOTUS did in the first place?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you didn't have much in the way of a coherent point to start with.

[Curly Bill]

Which leads me to the conclusion that you didn't have much in the way of a coherent point to start with.

Wait a minute, wait a minute!

Someone posted on here without having a coherent point?




;)

[Cam]

Wait a minute, wait a minute!

Someone posted on here without having a coherent point?

The hell you say.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like cheese sandwiches!

And monkeys fling poo!

[SoonerBorn68]

From my cold dead hands...

:)

[Rogue]

The ban on handguns has worked out really well here in Chicago.

And YOUR Mayor Daly plans to keep it that way.
Whatever.

[SoonerBorn68]

I think Rogue's sarcasm detector is broken.

[jkjsooner]

That's your point.

Wait, what?

I thought that the antecedent to "them" in this post:



referred to SCOTUS. Which is the only thing that makes sense, as they're the only ones that made a ruling here. But, on the other hand, it doesn't make sense, because you said you wanted "them" to admit that they were line drawing. But when pointed out is exactly what they did, you claim that was your point.

And besides that, how in the wide, wide world of sports can you lump me into a group of "You all" that sees this is a black and white subject, when I was the one that pointed out the actual line drawing that SCOTUS did in the first place?

Which leads me to the conclusion that you didn't have much in the way of a coherent point to start with.


No, I am consistent. I'm not saying Scalia didn't draw a line. I'm saying he is not admitting that he drew an arbitrary and debatable line.

I may be wrong about his thoughts. My comments are directed more towards you guys who view this as a black/white issue (and that isn't necessarily you skycat).

If Scalia admits that these are all gray issues and others may disagree with where he draws that line then I am happy with him.

[Harry Beanbag]

My comments are directed more towards you guys who view this as a black/white issue



http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/5849/thatsracistdk6.gif

[Harry Beanbag]

These guy's worldview won't allow them to understand that the French was ciritical in us winning our freedoms....


WTF? What flaccid point are you trying to make here? Everybody knows how much France helped us out during the Revolutionary War.

[Curly Bill]

WTF? What flaccid point are you trying to make here? Everybody knows how much France helped us out during the Revolutionary War.

I think he was trying to call us a bunch of dumasses. I personally took offense and negged him for it. :mad:

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

The legislation in Chicago and Washington D.C. just protected the criminals from the law abiders. If you knew that the house you are robbing might have a shotgun waiting for you....you might think twice before entering.

[olevetonahill]

I think he was trying to call us a bunch of dumasses. I personally took offense and negged him for it. :mad:

He shoulda Called us " Flying Dickwheels "
He wouldnt be red Now If he had ;)

[Curly Bill]

He shoulda Called us " Flying Dickwheels "
He wouldnt be red Now If he had ;)

Don't guess he got the memo that us gun folks are " flying dickwheels "

He should pay better tention. :D

[Sooner_Havok]

The legislation in Chicago and Washington D.C. just protected the criminals from the law abiders. If you knew that the house you are robbing might have a shotgun waiting for you....you might think twice before entering.

Me, yes. You, yes. Most people with any common sense, yes.

Your average dumb azz criminal... not so much.

[Curly Bill]

Me, yes. You, yes. Most people with any common sense, yes.

Your average dumb azz criminal... not so much.

Actually there have been studies done where they talked to actual criminals that indicate the #1 deterrent to their criminal activity was the possibility they would encounter someone who was armed.

[Sooner_Havok]

Actually there have been studies done where they talked to actual criminals that indicate the #1 deterrent to their criminal activity was the possibility they would encounter someone who was armed.

They may think and worry about it, but it apparently didn't stop them from committing a crime

[Jerk]

TDTW - if you're reading this...

http://img219.imageshack.us/img219/8184/simpsonsnelsonhaha2an7.jpg

I don't give a sh** what people like Xing, Bri, OUThunder, et al, think about this. But YOU? Pretending to be a Reagan fan? It just boggles the mind.

[Curly Bill]

They may think and worry about it, but it apparently didn't stop them from committing a crime

It had a lot to do with them picking a target, meaning of course that they tried to scope things out and pick one least likely to be armed.

...and yeah criminals are gonna do crimes, but their biggest concern was encountering an armed response from their intended victim. Thats why I like concealed carry cause it keeps 'em guessing.

[Sooner_Havok]

It had a lot to do with them picking a target, meaning of course that they tried to scope things out and pick one least likely to be armed.

...and yeah criminals are gonna do crimes, but their biggest concern was encountering an armed response from their intended victim. Thats why I like concealed carry cause it keeps 'em guessing.

Yup, and just because they know X% of the population might have a gun doesn't mean they are going to stop guessing. They may be worried about the guy they are about to mug having a gun, but they are still going to mug someone. Crime won't go down, criminals will just get shot and killed more often.

[Curly Bill]

Crime won't go down, criminals will just get shot and killed more often.

Not if we shoot and kill enough of them. :D

[Sooner_Havok]

Not if we shoot and kill enough of them. :D

Your just treating a symptom, not the problem. Two words, chemical castration.

[Curly Bill]

Your just treating a symptom, not the problem. Two words, chemical castration.

OK, I like that idea. :)

[Harry Beanbag]

Crime won't go down, criminals will just get shot and killed more often.


You act like there's something wrong with that. ;)

[Harry Beanbag]

Two words, chemical castration.


Yep. Gunpowder. :texan:

[Frozen Sooner]

You act like there's something wrong with that. ;)

I hereby assert the right of Ted Nugent to defend his intellectual property with deadly force. :D

[Okla-homey]

IMHO, the bottomline is simple. But for W's appointment of two moderately conservative justices in Sam Alito and John Roberts, as of yesterday, it would be constitutional for a state or local government to ban gun ownership by law-abiding and mentally sane folks.

That's the sort of thing that is at stake in the coming election. Who do you want appointing the replacements for the aging justices on the court? A moderate conservative who filed a court brief in support of Mr. Heller's rights, or "the most liberal member of the United States Senate" who did not and who supported DC's position?

5-4 decision. Keep that in mind this November.

[Harry Beanbag]

And here I thought all these years the Supreme Court was supposed to uphold the Constitution. Apparently, we have four justices that appear to be saying it's okay and preferrable if we just disregard it. Frightening.

[Okla-homey]

And here I thought all these years the Supreme Court was supposed to uphold the Constitution. Apparently, we have four justices that appear to be saying it's okay and preferrable if we just disregard it. Frightening.

worse yet, sometimes they like to read stuff into it that is simply not there. Whenever you see the word penumbra in an SCOTUS opinion, watch your wallet and your cornhole. ;)

[SoonerBorn68]

Jeez, don't you know the Constitution is just an outdated piece of paper? It worked fine 200 years ago when this country was young but we, as a people, have out grown it. Judges, legislators, senators, governors, heck even mayors have their collective hands on the pulse of what America is all about today--and if it doesn't fit their agenda it's perfectly fine to change/disgard/shat upon the Constiution.

[SoonerBorn68]

And here I thought all these years the Supreme Court was supposed to uphold the Constitution. Apparently, we have four justices that appear to be saying it's okay and preferrable if we just disregard it. Frightening.

But they know what's best for ALL of us.

[Frozen Sooner]

Remember, folks, if you're scoring at home, activist means "reversed local law I liked."

[SoonerBorn68]

Two of my posts disappeared from this thread.

Strange. Didn't this happen to SAS?

Edit: They reappeared.

Double strange.

[Okla-homey]

Remember, folks, if you're scoring at home, activist means "reversed local law I liked."

Not exactly Mike. See, if the local law is unconstitutional based on the language of the document or the Framers intent, that's one thing. If a local law is enjoined on constitutional grounds based on a wacky interpretation, that's a horse of a different hue.

Take "privacy" as a constitutional right for example. The word is not in the Constitution. It was "found" to be in the document by implication by the Warren court. Thus, a long line of cases descended from that single bit of judicial alchemy that resulted in injunctions against a lot of local laws. E.g. the right to abortion cases and Lawrence v. Texas, in which tejas sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional because of a privacy right of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of the boudoire. Fair enough, but that ain't in the Constitution. I promise. I've read the whole thing as I've sure you have.

I just tend to get a bit antsy when the Court starts stretching expressed rights to cover conduct and/or circumstances that were not wihin the ken of the Framers. I also get a bit stirred up when the Constitution is referred to as a "living document" as if its expressed language is malleable to fit whatever. I'm generally of the view that if folks want "change," they need to saddle-up and press for an constitutional amendment. Short of that, stretching the words to fit is speeding.

That's also why my all-time favorite Justice is Antonin Scalia. He's hell on the "living document" crowd.

[StoopTroup]

Aren't there laws that will take your guns away from you if you misuse them?

The thing is this...

Some folks made some local law and some other folks pushed to get a rulling on it's Constitutionality?

I don't really care what any Judge was thinking as long as he or she keeps the Framer's intent intact.

Worrying about whether or not you vote a guy into the POTUS due to scare tactics of a 5-4 decision is poppycock IMHO.

If they rule differently later on due to placing a person into the SCOTUS and they rule against the Framer's intent.....there will be a bloodbath in this Country.

The Country they were trying to make safer...will be changed forever and will be even less safe.

A 4 year President isn't going to save or change it IMO...

Clinton was going to be the undoing of America yet 8 years later we still had our guns.

[Okla-homey]

Worrying about whether or not you vote a guy into the POTUS due to scare tactics of a 5-4 decision is poppycock IMHO.




Call it horse hockey if you want bro, but Supreme Court appointments are one of the single most important and long-lasting things any president does. There is the barest of majorities among conservative thinkers on the Court. We've seen that just this week with many of the rulings that were handed down. Justices Ginsburg and Stevens are quite old and can't hang in much longer. I would like to see moderates appointed in their place. Its simply not fear-mongering to say or think BHO will not appoint moderates.

[StoopTroup]

A few guns could make those appointments shorter. ;)

[olevetonahill]

A few guns could make those appointments shorter. ;)

Now you are talkin ANARKY :P

[Jerk]

I'm still reeling in pure joy over this, although somewhat miffed that we almost lost a constitutional right by one vote.

The hysteria by some brings out the happiness in me. Watching them flip out is almost too hilarious.

www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-supreme-court-gun-ban,0,3522044.story)

You know what? This ruling did nothing to stop regulation and control of guns...all it did was rule-out gun prohibition and gun confiscation. Yet these people have their panties in a bind. This shows their true agenda. It wasn't "common sense gun laws." It was "no guns for any responsible adult."

[47straight]

Worrying about whether or not you vote a guy into the POTUS due to scare tactics of a 5-4 decision is poppycock IMHO.

If they rule differently later on due to placing a person into the SCOTUS and they rule against the Framer's intent.....there will be a bloodbath in this Country.


Indeed, there was, and there was.

Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Decided against the framer's intent using a dubious, made-up tactic called "substantive due process," Dred Scott was bad law and made for a bad result: The Civil War.

I'd much rather be a one-issue voter --- judicial appointments --- than have anything like that ever happen again.

[Sooner_Havok]

Just so we are all clear about these damned liberal justices...

John Roberts - Appointed by:G.W. Bush

Samuel Alito - Appointed by:G.W. Bush

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by:Ford

Antonin Scalia - Appointed by:Reagan

Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by:Reagan

David Souter - G.H.W. Bush

Clarence Thomas - Appointed by:G.H.W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by:Clinton

Stephen Breyer - Appointed by:Clinton

[Tulsa_Fireman]

I like this. A lot.


A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Apparently the Senate at the time saw fit to trim this version of Amendment II after approval by the House, removing the definition of militia and other nuggets. I'm sure you guys are well aware of this, and I'm not sure how this applies in today's legal situation, but does THIS not quell any and all questions as to the intent of the Founders by the definition of exactly what the militia was?

Though not sent to the states for ratification for what I'm assuming is brevity or the commonly understood definition of the militia in the days of its formation, I *channels Miss SC* personally believe this should quell any and all doubt. In other words, I am the militia. You are the militia. Based in the roots of British common law, defined by application to the present day and the guns I own for self-defense and the, Lord forbid, defense of this nation from foreign and federal tyranny.

[Jerk]

Just so we are all clear about these damned liberal justices...

John Roberts - Appointed by:G.W. Bush

Samuel Alito - Appointed by:G.W. Bush

John Paul Stevens - Appointed by:Ford

Antonin Scalia - Appointed by:Reagan

Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by:Reagan

David Souter - G.H.W. Bush

Clarence Thomas - Appointed by:G.H.W. Bush

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Appointed by:Clinton

Stephen Breyer - Appointed by:Clinton

This doesn't show the political ideology of the justices. The President's base does expect payback in the form of like-minded appointees. Hence, Clinton gave the liberals Ginsburg and Breyer. Bush gave the conservatives Roberts and Alito. But every once-in-a-while, someone f***'s up, like daddy Bush did by appointing Souter. The right-wing of the Republican party remembered this and did not want to see Bush II make that same mistake, and the campaign was on: "No moe Soutors"

[Tulsa_Fireman]

He's a Souter!

http://sidesalad.net/archives/DelmarFromOBrotherWhereArtThou.jpg

[CORNholio]

The fact that "criminals" will use guns to hurt the innocent is sad, but in no way should it outweigh the right of the people to defend itself against a "government" who can afflict much more harm on its own than a few criminals. If the SupCourtJustices aren't there to protect the integrity of the Constitution then what the hell good are they.

[soonerscuba]

Heh. While I agree that people should have guns, I do find the "strict constructionists" to be, maybe, the funniest group of people on the planet. They channel the dead to determine what they would have wanted in modern political theory, naturally they use this power only for good. It goes without saying that they support slavery and wish to expand Congress to 11500 members as perscribed by the framers. Let's be honest, there really are no "orginalists", rather people that wish to bend a political philosophy to the Founders to push their own personal position.


Still, Mike Rich is dead on, an activist is somebody who overturns a law on which you agree.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

These guy's worldview won't allow them to understand that the French was ciritical in us winning our freedoms....

Only because they wanted to stick to the Brits and perhaps win back some land. Not necessarily about helping a poor little ole group of people wanting to govern themselves...

[Rogue]

I agree with the Home-ster. SCOTUS appointments are a huge deal. It's one major reason why 2004 was such a huge election. It's also why a couple justices are hanging on until the next regime, IMO.

[Jerk]

Heh. While I agree that people should have guns, I do find the "strict constructionists" to be, maybe, the funniest group of people on the planet. They channel the dead to determine what they would have wanted in modern political theory, naturally they use this power only for good. It goes without saying that they support slavery and wish to expand Congress to 11500 members as perscribed by the framers. Let's be honest, there really are no "orginalists", rather people that wish to bend a political philosophy to the Founders to push their own personal position.


Still, Mike Rich is dead on, an activist is somebody who overturns a law on which you agree.

So, is this how you can have a justice who votes in favor of abortion rights, which is not found anywhere in the constitution, but against gun rights when it can be clearly found in the constitution? Even Lawrence Tribe brought this up.

Now, the last thing I want is an abortion debate here at S.O.

I'm not interested in hashing out the moral, ethical, and religious arguments. But I want to ask, as simply a legal question...where is it in the constitution?? I think it is clearly a state issue, myself.

How can someone honestly say that the constitution protects abortion on a federal level yet doesn't grant individuals the right to self-defense? Anyone here who considers themselves a liberal is more than welcomed to answer this.

[King Crimson]

this is not about the abortion issue, and while i'm widely considered a liberal anti-american apple pie and baseball hating commie by most here....i think the gun rights people have/had every reason to be outraged by this whole thing. either the Bill of Rights matters or it doesn't.

now, when people start to get partisan about which of the Amendments they prefer over others (which is clearly the case too often)...that's where it starts to get iffy for me. like i say, either the Bill of Rights matters or it doesn't.

[Jerk]

now, when people start to get partisan about which of the Amendments they prefer over others (which is clearly the case too often)...that's where it starts to get iffy for me. like i say, either the Bill of Rights matters or it doesn't.

Amen.

[47straight]

Heh. While I agree that people should have guns, I do find the "strict constructionists" to be, maybe, the funniest group of people on the planet. They channel the dead to determine what they would have wanted in modern political theory, naturally they use this power only for good. It goes without saying that they support slavery and wish to expand Congress to 11500 members as perscribed by the framers. Let's be honest, there really are no "orginalists", rather people that wish to bend a political philosophy to the Founders to push their own personal position.


Still, Mike Rich is dead on, an activist is somebody who overturns a law on which you agree.

Nope.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

By the way, when they rule that I can carry a firearm into the SCOTUS building then I'll give them credit for being consistent. Otherwise, I want them to admit lines are drawn and it's merely a matter of where you draw them.

They make you go through not one but two metal detectors at the Supreme Court Building. But Scalia was clear that gov't can restrict where you take your puppy.

[47straight]

Let's try this to find some common ground: Whatever your approach to judicial philosophy, it should, at times, force you to end results that you personally do not like.

So, for example, Scalia has voted numerous times for results he has said he finds disagreeable. The three biggest examples I can come up with would be, a) deciding and concurring against his own church in Boerne v. Flores, denying a freedom of religion argument, b) deciding many times for procedural rights for criminal defendants in a variety of cases, such as right to confront accuser, and c) upholding first amendment issues like flag-burning.

Sorry for the lack of named cases on b) and c). I promise I am not making them up. As good as such innernet promises are. ;)

If we look to the 'liberal' wing of the court, I cannot name any such counter-examples, so if anyone knows of examples, please feel free to reply and add them. Specifically, I am trying to remember if Ginsberg, as ex-head of the ACLU, has ever decided against the ACLU's position. Or if Stevens has ever decided for the free exercise of religion, ever.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

If we look to the 'liberal' wing of the court, I cannot name any such counter-examples, so if anyone knows of examples, please feel free to reply and add them.

not sure if you include Stevens and Breyer in the "Liberal Wing" but both voted with the majority to uphold Kentucky's three-cocktail method for the death penalty.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Can a law school refuse to allow military recruiters on campus if it doesn't agree with the policy of excluding openly gay people? In a definitive 8-0 ruling that touched on free speech, gay rights and academic freedoms, the Supreme Court today said no.

Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal was there, and she joins us now.

This was a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice Roberts, no other commentary added to it.

Apparently Ginsberg and Stevens said no. But liberals have a stake on boths sides: gay rights and free speech.

[Harry Beanbag]

Still, Mike Rich is dead on, an activist is somebody who overturns a law on which you agree.


Yeah, that's a cute little epithet that the enlightened like to throw around on this board, but it doesn't apply at all in this case. The Constitution says the people have the right to bear arms, the result of this case was exactly what it should have been, no questions asked. The issue is WTF did 4 justices feel different, this one should have been unanimous.

[StoopTroup]

Indeed, there was, and there was.

Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Decided against the framer's intent using a dubious, made-up tactic called "substantive due process," Dred Scott was bad law and made for a bad result: The Civil War.

I'd much rather be a one-issue voter --- judicial appointments --- than have anything like that ever happen again.

I'm gonna go have my slaves clean my guns just in case. ;) :D

[47straight]

not sure if you include Stevens and Breyer in the "Liberal Wing" but both voted with the majority to uphold Kentucky's three-cocktail method for the death penalty.



That's a good example, thanks. I have not read that case - did they really join on the facts or on the law? My earlier comments were more on the law part. I thought that one of the weakness of the cocktail was the unclear evidence that it caused pain and suffering. I would opine that you have to wake up really early in the morning to declare the death penalty per se unconstitutional when it is mentioned in said constitution.

[47straight]

Apparently Ginsberg and Stevens said no. But liberals have a stake on boths sides: gay rights and free speech.

That's a spending clause case, no?

[jkjsooner]

Let's try this to find some common ground: Whatever your approach to judicial philosophy, it should, at times, force you to end results that you personally do not like.

So, for example, Scalia has voted numerous times for results he has said he finds disagreeable. The three biggest examples I can come up with would be, a) deciding and concurring against his own church in Boerne v. Flores, denying a freedom of religion argument, b) deciding many times for procedural rights for criminal defendants in a variety of cases, such as right to confront accuser, and c) upholding first amendment issues like flag-burning.

Sorry for the lack of named cases on b) and c). I promise I am not making them up. As good as such innernet promises are. ;)

If we look to the 'liberal' wing of the court, I cannot name any such counter-examples, so if anyone knows of examples, please feel free to reply and add them. Specifically, I am trying to remember if Ginsberg, as ex-head of the ACLU, has ever decided against the ACLU's position. Or if Stevens has ever decided for the free exercise of religion, ever.

I think you have a great point there. Too many times judges get blasted because of their decisions when an honest interpretation of the laws forces their hand.

But I submit to you that Scalia/Thomas also are very inconsistent and contradictory when it suits their purpose. Take California's medical marajuana laws. I could be wrong about those two but most conservatives feel the commerce clause has been widely overused to increase federal power over the states. Yet, when there's a moral issue at hand many of the conservative justices are quick to set these aside.

They've also been very very supportive of parts of the patriot act/etc - with a few key rulings against Bush notwithstanding.

I don't think the liberals are the only ones who pick and choose their positions based on convenience.

[Scott D]

I like this. A lot.



Apparently the Senate at the time saw fit to trim this version of Amendment II after approval by the House, removing the definition of militia and other nuggets. I'm sure you guys are well aware of this, and I'm not sure how this applies in today's legal situation, but does THIS not quell any and all questions as to the intent of the Founders by the definition of exactly what the militia was?

Though not sent to the states for ratification for what I'm assuming is brevity or the commonly understood definition of the militia in the days of its formation, I *channels Miss SC* personally believe this should quell any and all doubt. In other words, I am the militia. You are the militia. Based in the roots of British common law, defined by application to the present day and the guns I own for self-defense and the, Lord forbid, defense of this nation from foreign and federal tyranny.

What is missed out in this is that, the framers themselves negated the militia argument by the time they formed the actual government. While some stalwarts like George Mason fought against there being a large centralized military, they ended up with one out of necessity. Had framers such as Mason gotten their way, the militia argument would hold far more weight than it does now. As our country would be far more dependant on militias and less dependant on a national military.

It's irrational to try to say these days "the framers wanted this, or the framers wanted that". Everyone points to the whole "All men are created equal", well that was based on their interpretation of people. Anyone that wasn't european/christian based was considered to be some form of sub human, therefore only white males were created equal, and everyone else was lesser. Obviously we know that not to be true. But it was considered true in their day.

I've always said it's a sad state of affairs that the SCOTUS based on politics. It should have always been based upon whom is the right candidate for the job, not what activist wheels the sitting president can get greased by finding someone relatively like minded for the job. But, it shouldn't be a surprise considering the sad state of affairs that we the populace have allowed ourselves to be pushed into by the machine itself.

I'll be waiting to hear the national anthem being brought to you by Microsoft at a sporting event eventually.

[jkjsooner]

Yeah, that's a cute little epithet that the enlightened like to throw around on this board, but it doesn't apply at all in this case. The Constitution says the people have the right to bear arms, the result of this case was exactly what it should have been, no questions asked. The issue is WTF did 4 justices feel different, this one should have been unanimous.

The simple answer is the well regulated militia clause. You might think that's crap but it's not an unheard of interpretation.

On that topic, I can give you all your definition of "militia" but what exactly does "well regulated" mean? It has to mean something other than every man for himself.

[jkjsooner]

It's irrational to try to say these days "the framers wanted this, or the framers wanted that".


One problem with the original intent idea is that it assumes the various parties were all in agreement about the intent. All of these documents are a result of comprimises and in many cases one way to compromise is to leave it vague.

We do practice English common law afterall and laws and constitutions are kept vague for the courts to work out. These ideas were well estab lished at our country's founding.

In many, many cases you can find writing in which our founding fathers didn't all agree on the meaning of certain aspects of the constitution.

[Jerk]

The simple answer is the well regulated militia clause. You might think that's crap but it's not an unheard of interpretation.

On that topic, I can give you all your definition of "militia" but what exactly does "well regulated" mean? It has to mean something other than every man for himself.

It means "well-trained."

If you read the ruling from Scalia, it is dissected clearly.

What does "the people" mean? In every other amendment which guarantees rights, it applies to individuals, not collectives, such as freedom of speech. Why would the Framers be inconsistent about this? "Oh, but they really mean 'the people' when the say the "the people" on some amendments, but on the ones we don't like, they mean "the collective." Do you realize how terribly out-of-wack this is?

"Right of the people" is used in the first and fourth amendments, and no doubt refers to individual rights.

[Harry Beanbag]

The simple answer is the well regulated militia clause. You might think that's crap but it's not an unheard of interpretation.

On that topic, I can give you all your definition of "militia" but what exactly does "well regulated" mean? It has to mean something other than every man for himself.


It's two different statements. A well regulated militia and the right of the people. "The people" does not refer to militiamen. To conclude that it does is just wishful thinking to some.

If the framers would have written this crap in complete sentences instead of the haphazard use of commas and semicolons, we wouldn't have this trouble. :)

[jkjsooner]

I don't know how all this neg stuff works but can I have a little positive spek, please? I said one thing that might have insulted some of your intelligence and I'm sorry. But one misguided comment shouldn't leave me forever in the red. Please?;)

[Jerk]

I don't know how all this neg stuff works but can I have a little positive spek, please? I said one thing that might have insulted some of your intelligence and I'm sorry. But one misguided comment shouldn't leave me forever in the red. Please?;)

I will if you answer me a question:

Do you have a personalized tag? If so, I saw you once on the Hefner Pkwy.

[jkjsooner]

I will if you answer me a question:

Do you have a personalized tag? If so, I saw you once on the Hefner Pkwy.


No, I live in DC.

[Jerk]

No, I live in DC.

Oh, okay.

The guy I saw jkj III or something like that.

[Harry Beanbag]

I don't know how all this neg stuff works but can I have a little positive spek, please? I said one thing that might have insulted some of your intelligence and I'm sorry. But one misguided comment shouldn't leave me forever in the red. Please?;)


What did you say? You might deserve the red.

[jkjsooner]

It's two different statements. A well regulated militia and the right of the people. "The people" does not refer to militiamen. To conclude that it does is just wishful thinking to some.

If the framers would have written this crap in complete sentences instead of the haphazard use of commas and semicolons, we wouldn't have this trouble. :)

I have trouble believing your interpretation based on the actual text. It can't be two statements as worded and initial clause must have some relevance.

To claim these are two completely different statements seems to me to be yet another example of creative interpretation that the liberals always get blamed for.

I'm not saying the ruling or the common interterpretation is creative. I'm saying your assertion that these are completely separate statements is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[jkjsooner]

What did you say? You might deserve the red.

Statement about people's worldview and the French. It was irrelevant and somewhat insulting so, yeah, probably deserved.

Not that I really care at all, but does the impact of +/- spek degrade over time?

[Frozen Sooner]

Let's try this to find some common ground: Whatever your approach to judicial philosophy, it should, at times, force you to end results that you personally do not like.

I agree with this statement 100%.

[47straight]

I think you have a great point there. Too many times judges get blasted because of their decisions when an honest interpretation of the laws forces their hand.

But I submit to you that Scalia/Thomas also are very inconsistent and contradictory when it suits their purpose. Take California's medical marajuana laws. I could be wrong about those two but most conservatives feel the commerce clause has been widely overused to increase federal power over the states. Yet, when there's a moral issue at hand many of the conservative justices are quick to set these aside.

They've also been very very supportive of parts of the patriot act/etc - with a few key rulings against Bush notwithstanding.

I don't think the liberals are the only ones who pick and choose their positions based on convenience.


We'll probably just disagree as to which side does it more. My big concern is that I don't see the judically liberal side of the court recognizing that it is even a problem to address.

Many conservatives and federalists do indeed believe that the commerce clause has been overused for power over the states. The medical marijuana cases were a a good example to see where the lines would be drawn, with many prognosticators thinking that Scalia/Thomas could go either way on it.

However, to any conservatives disapppointed that Scalia/Thomas didn't go further in limiting the commerce power, if it wasn't for Scalia/Thomas in Lopez, there would be *no* limits to begin with, or to allegedly inconsistently apply.

[47straight]

One problem with the original intent idea is that it assumes the various parties were all in agreement about the intent. All of these documents are a result of comprimises and in many cases one way to compromise is to leave it vague.

We do practice English common law afterall and laws and constitutions are kept vague for the courts to work out. These ideas were well estab lished at our country's founding.

In many, many cases you can find writing in which our founding fathers didn't all agree on the meaning of certain aspects of the constitution.

I'll give you even more ammo against my own position! : Is it the intent of the framers or the ratifiers that matters?

[Frozen Sooner]

Not exactly Mike. See, if the local law is unconstitutional based on the language of the document or the Framers intent, that's one thing. If a local law is enjoined on constitutional grounds based on a wacky interpretation, that's a horse of a different hue.

I submit that "wacky" is a matter of interpretation. For the record, I think that the opinion of the Court is absolutely correct in this case-except I don't think they went far enough. That's a fault in the initial suit, though, not in the Court.


Take "privacy" as a constitutional right for example. The word is not in the Constitution. It was "found" to be in the document by implication by the Warren court. Thus, a long line of cases descended from that single bit of judicial alchemy that resulted in injunctions against a lot of local laws. E.g. the right to abortion cases and Lawrence v. Texas, in which tejas sodomy laws were struck down as unconstitutional because of a privacy right of consenting adults to do whatever they want in the privacy of the boudoire. Fair enough, but that ain't in the Constitution. I promise. I've read the whole thing as I've sure you have.

The "penumbra" deal doesn't bother me a great deal, so long as it's not used to justify something blatantly against the intent of the document.


I just tend to get a bit antsy when the Court starts stretching expressed rights to cover conduct and/or circumstances that were not wihin the ken of the Framers. I also get a bit stirred up when the Constitution is referred to as a "living document" as if its expressed language is malleable to fit whatever. I'm generally of the view that if folks want "change," they need to saddle-up and press for an constitutional amendment. Short of that, stretching the words to fit is speeding.

That's also why my all-time favorite Justice is Antonin Scalia. He's hell on the "living document" crowd.

Marbury v. Madison set out pretty early in the nation's history that the Constitution was a living document.

I give you Judge Richard Posner, hardly a liberal:


A constitution that did not invalidate so offensive, oppressive, probably undemocratic, and sectarian law [as the Connecticut law banning contraceptives] would stand revealed as containing major gaps. Maybe that is the nature of our, or perhaps any, written Constitution; but yet, perhaps the courts are authorized to plug at least the most glaring gaps. Does anyone really believe, in his heart of hearts, that the Constitution should be interpreted so literally as to authorize every conceivable law that would not violate a specific constitutional clause? This would mean that a state could require everyone to marry, or to have intercourse at least once a month, or it could take away every couple's second child and place it in a foster home.... We find it reassuring to think that the courts stand between us and legislative tyranny even if a particular form of tyranny was not foreseen and expressly forbidden by framers of the Constitution.

I give you Edmund Randoph, speaking at the Constitutional Convention:


In the draught of a fundamental constitution, two things deserve attention:

1. To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accommodated to times and events: and

2. To use simple and precise language, and general propositions, according to the example of the constitutions of the several states."

[soonerscuba]

So, is this how you can have a justice who votes in favor of abortion rights, which is not found anywhere in the constitution, but against gun rights when it can be clearly found in the constitution? Even Lawrence Tribe brought this up.

Now, the last thing I want is an abortion debate here at S.O.

I'm not interested in hashing out the moral, ethical, and religious arguments. But I want to ask, as simply a legal question...where is it in the constitution?? I think it is clearly a state issue, myself.

How can someone honestly say that the constitution protects abortion on a federal level yet doesn't grant individuals the right to self-defense? Anyone here who considers themselves a liberal is more than welcomed to answer this.
The short answer is that it's widely accepted social, judicial, and political policy that the medical records of individuals is between them and their doctors. Thus, in highly specialized skills sets (such as doctoring or lawyering), it's common practice to defer to the advice of professional organization. Basically, I feel that had the AMA, modern education, and an insurance system been around the framers probably would have said something, it wasn't, so that is the job of courts to hash out. Whether or not you agree with abortion, I think that it's easy to realize that the scope of available medical procedures should not vary state to state. There are a whole myriad of things that the Constitution could not even begin to address, but that doesn't mean one shouldn't or couldn't rule on them, a good example of this is net neutrality.

You seem upset at this otherwise victory for potential gun owners in DC. I know that you believe in expanded state's rights, and in theory I agree, but then I also think there are many in the Bible Belt that literally need Federal protection from a majority of theocrats. On the flipside, there are gun owners in N. California that would be jailed if left to the states. Keep in mind, a gay relationship was against the law in Texas less than a decade ago.

[jkjsooner]

I'll submit one relevant example where I think some conservatives have applied their own creative interpretations. Some have asserted that gun registrations are unconstitutional due to the 2nd amendment. To take this stance one must:

1. Submit to the theory that a registration is in fact an infringement. But registration, by itself, does not equate to infringement - especially in today's electronic world where a registration could be completed in minutes.

2. Registration could lead to confiscation or infringement. Sure, that could happen but the fact that one thing could lead to another does not mean the first is equivalent to the second. This argument is very similar to twisted arguments (x may lead to y which is unconstitutional therefore so is x) that liberals have used to find some things unconstitutional.

3. Registration is against the general principal. Sorry, you can't take a strict interpretation of the constitution then make "general principal" arguments. That is the same twisted logic that leads to the constitution protecting the right to privacy. You can find many framer's writings supporting a right to privacy. (Now, if you aren't a strict interpretationist then, fine, feel entirely free to make this argument.)

All that said, I imagine many who argue against registrations aren't necessarily arguing that a registration would be unconstitutional but some have made that argument.

[Harry Beanbag]

I have trouble believing your interpretation based on the actual text. It can't be two statements as worded and initial clause must have some relevance.

To claim these are two completely different statements seems to me to be yet another example of creative interpretation that the liberals always get blamed for.

I'm not saying the ruling or the common interterpretation is creative. I'm saying your assertion that these are completely separate statements is.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


You totally didn't read my second paragraph.

[jkjsooner]

You totally didn't read my second paragraph.

I did but I can't dismiss this as simply poor use of the language.

If these are two different statements, what the heck were they saying with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." What about a well regulated militia?

Again, I just can't buy this.

[Harry Beanbag]

Again, I just can't buy this.

And you never will understand. It's not worth arguing with you about. http://slickdawg.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif

[Jerk]

I did but I can't dismiss this as simply poor use of the language.

If these are two different statements, what the heck were they saying with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." What about a well regulated militia?

Again, I just can't buy this.

Did you read Scalia's opinion? The amendment and its history is dissected like a frog in 7th grade science class.

[Okla-homey]

I did but I can't dismiss this as simply poor use of the language.

If these are two different statements, what the heck were they saying with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State." What about a well regulated militia?

Again, I just can't buy this.

In order to understand the precatory clause, you must be aware that in the 18th century, every able-bodied adult male was part of the "militia" and liable to call up in emergencies. Thus, in order to make sure those guys could be effective if called with little or no notice, they had to own shootin' irons and be experienced in their use.

Mind you, those "emergencies" ranged from repelling foreign invasion to fighting a home-grown tyrant.

[TheHumanAlphabet]

In order to understand the precatory clause, you must be aware that in the 18th century, every able-bodied adult male was part of the "militia" and liable to call up in emergencies. Thus, in order to make sure those guys could be effective if called with little or no notice, they had to own shootin' irons and be experienced in their use.

Mind you, those "emergencies" ranged from repelling foreign invasion to fighting a home-grown tyrant.

Not a bad idea to start working again...change the wording to adults, add 2 years service to the country and perhaps we'll start a new generation that isn't so pampered and out of touch with global issues and feel a part of the government and will instill a sense of patriotism/civics that has been missing for some time.

Plus, it would keep some of those Cops segments from airing...;)

[jkjsooner]

In order to understand the precatory clause, you must be aware that in the 18th century, every able-bodied adult male was part of the "militia" and liable to call up in emergencies. Thus, in order to make sure those guys could be effective if called with little or no notice, they had to own shootin' irons and be experienced in their use.

Mind you, those "emergencies" ranged from repelling foreign invasion to fighting a home-grown tyrant.

That is fine but that is not what Harry was saying - basically saying one clause had nothing to do with the other.

I can buy your argument. I can't buy his.

[jkjsooner]

And you never will understand. It's not worth arguing with you about. http://slickdawg.com/images/smilies/banghead.gif


I'll never "get it" because I disagree with you. Nice.

[StoopTroup]

Just in case Obama and Billary get in...I just gave away all my guns.

So any of you in Law Enforcement know there is no reason to search my house now. :D

[Jerk]

I'll never "get it" because I disagree with you. Nice.

What do you not agree with?

I have a right to protect my life and my family.

It has been recognized by the constitution for a long time.

It is now recognized by the Supreme Court.

Pray tell, what is the big deal?

[jkjsooner]

What do you not agree with?

I have a right to protect my life and my family.

It has been recognized by the constitution for a long time.

It is now recognized by the Supreme Court.

Pray tell, what is the big deal?

The disagreement I'm referring to has nothing to do with any of the things you just mentioned.

What I "don't get" is that the framers were saying two different unconnected things in the second ammendment. Only one poster has made that claim and I can't agree with it.

[Jerk]

The disagreement I'm referring to has nothing to do with any of the things you just mentioned.

What I "don't get" is that the framers were saying two different unconnected things in the second ammendment. Only one poster has made that claim and I can't agree with it.


Sorry, dude, it's hard for me to comprehende after six tecates.

[jkjsooner]

By the way, I looked it up and I was wrong about Thomas in the Gonzales v. Raich case. Thomas actually dissented in favor of the State of California. I have to admit that I gained a lot of respect for him over that.

As for Scalia, I still reserve much criticism for him. As an originalist I find his stance on many similar cases to be hypocritical. I don't think any sane person would conclude that a small amount of personally grown MJ that is to be used by the self constitutes interstate commerce. It takes a lot of twists in logic to make that argument - twists that Scalia generally abhores.

There is nothing stopping the feds from enforcing other laws so the personal MJ use does not threaten the federal interstate drug trafficking. Instead the court simply gave the feds power to arrest those who they know have the drug for personal use.

Had it been similar case without the moral issues of medical MJ, Scalia most likely would have ruled the other way.

As for someone who said the liberals are more guilty of activism than the conservatives, I don't disagree. However, many of them prescribe to the "living document" philosophy so in this area I believe they're wrong but not hypocrits.

But, let's face it, almost all of them are hypocrits. They do pick and choose precedences and philosophies based on political leanings. Scalia just happens to rail against the practice without realizing/admitting he is doing it.

[jkjsooner]

I find it interesting that several posters have mentioned the poor use of the language (which I agree) in the second amendment but also criticize that the ruling was not 9-0. You know, if the framers wanted a 9-0 ruling they darn sure could have done a better job writing the darn thing.

If you use odd language you're asking for trouble.

[Jerk]

What do you think? 5 day waiting period?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfsWBgfpznk&feature=related
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-v92nxahDQ)

[Jerk]

Wait, I meant this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyZI3RK2lE&feature=related

[Curly Bill]

What do you think? 5 day waiting period?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-v92nxahDQ

Might be a bit much for hunting with, but it'd make an excellent home defense weapon. :D

[Jerk]

Might be a bit much for hunting with, but it'd make an excellent home defense weapon. :D


There is just something beautiful about classical music and nuclear explosions


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJoyOl7_QBg

[Curly Bill]

They should have made some of those things in a compact version...

...you know, for concealed carry. ;)