Rights hanging on the edge

Glenn E Meyer said:
The Constitution and the SCOTUS didn't keep 100K Japanese out of camps when the social consensus supported it.

This is where Frank would go off an a wild but educational tangent claiming you are completely ignorant of anything related to WW2. I'll look forward to his post.

Your statement isn't an indictment of the Constitution -- it's just a piece of paper. And it is far less an indictment of the judicial branch than of the executive branch, which ordered the internment.

But it completes the loop, as the executive branch was the only branch of government we hadn't yet damned in this thread. With that complete, we have presented irrefutable evidence which shows all 3 branches of the federal government are wildly irresponsible, shirk their duties, fail to protect citizens, and trample on civil rights. We can conclude that no single branch of the federal government can help us.

So....time to involve the state governments? Article V convention?

raimius said:
Look at the 14th Amendment and the Slaughter-house cases. The court found what it wanted to find...

Do legislatures do otherwise, and pass laws they don't want to pass? No, they don't, and that's the elephant in the room that many of the above posters have failed to address. Perhaps they think by sticking their heads in the sand the problems go away?
 
speedrrracer said:
Glenn E Meyer said:
The Constitution and the SCOTUS didn't keep 100K Japanese out of camps when the social consensus supported it.

This is where Frank would go off an a wild but educational tangent claiming you are completely ignorant of anything related to WW2. I'll look forward to his post....
Actually, Glenn is correct.

speedrrracer said:
...Your statement isn't an indictment of the Constitution -- it's just a piece of paper. And it is far less an indictment of the judicial branch than of the executive branch, which ordered the internment.

But it completes the loop, as the executive branch was the only branch of government we hadn't yet damned in this thread. With that complete, we have presented irrefutable evidence which shows all 3 branches of the federal government are wildly irresponsible, shirk their duties, fail to protect citizens, and trample on civil rights. We can conclude that no single branch of the federal government can help us....
Is all of that supposed to mean something? It's complete gibberish.

Let's stay focused on reality and skip these excursions into your private universe.
 
I'd like to raise another point about Frank's comparison to the Civil Rights Movement. Notice, if you will, that the black people in the photos he posted are not wearing berets and giving black power salutes, nor are the decked out in traditional African garb, nor are the in the faces of the white people surrounding them attempting to force their way of life down the whites' throats.

I think most would agree that Dr. King was the greatest Civil Rights leader in American history and that his work probably contributed to more positive change than that of any other single individual. What I always noticed about Dr. King which particularly contrasts with many of the so-called "civil rights activists" we're saddled with today was the way in which he conducted himself. Dr. King always took care to dress and groom himself in such a way that he looked respectable. He always spoke in an eloquent and articulate manner which sounded educated and respectable. I am thankful that the Civil Rights Movement was in the hands of people like Dr. King and not the race-baiting political bomb throwers we seem to be saddled with today as I believe that Dr. King and those like him achieved a much better result.

Dr. King could have delivered the same message while wearing a traditional African outfit and speaking in the slang of the black culture of the time, but he chose not to because his message would have been less well received that way. Dr. King understood that his argument would seem much more reasonable, and garner much wider support, if it were delivered by someone who seemed like a reasonable, educated, and respectable man.

Those who claim to be 2A activists could learn much from how Dr. King conducted himself. Strolling through a department store dressed like an unkempt hipster with a black rifle in your hands isn't going to make you seem reasonable, educated, or respectable to many people. It's nothing more than grandstanding and attempting to shove the gun culture down people's throats for the shock value of it.

While I'm not categorically against open carry, if you're going to do it then at least be a good ambassador to the rest of the populace. Dress yourself respectably, be articulate, use a proper holster which offers at least some retention and security, don't try to draw attention to yourself, and above all be polite and courteous.

For those who say "but it's my right, by God, and I should be able to carry however I want to!" I say this: we live in an imperfect word where what should be and what is are often two very different things. Stamping your proverbial feet and being obtuse isn't a very effective way to change enough people's minds to make what is into what it should be.
 
It's always easy for those on the sidelines to disparage and criticize those taking all the risks. The NRA sure did when SAF went to bat for Heller.
OK. Let me put it this way: what if we'd lost Heller? What if the result had been 5-4 that the 2A only protects a right to own firearms in the service of a state-owned militia?

The very next mass shooting, we'd have seen sweeping bans and confiscation from an administration claiming, "it's constitutional; the Supreme Court said so."

2A litigation has a spotty and questionable history. I was optimistic about Heller at the time, but I was also very, very nervous. Our right to own firearms hinged on one Justice's opinion of the matter.

Were the case to be brought right now, we'd probably lose.

So, yes, the NRA was cautious. I don't blame them. We've seen dozens, if not scores, of shoddy nuisance 2A cases brought in the wake of Heller by people who don't understand the legal and political situation (Leonard Embody and Jay Hollis spring to mind), and I'm very glad none of those are going before SCOTUS any time soon.
 
Tom Servo said:
OK. Let me put it this way: what if we'd lost Heller? What if the result had been 5-4 that the 2A only protects a right to own firearms in the service of a state-owned militia?

Given the general hostility of the courts towards guns, I don't think it would have mattered much if the U.S. Supreme court ruling in Heller only protected a right to bear arms in service of a state militia (National Guard).

Even if you buy into the belonging to a state militia (National Guard) to have a right in the Bill of Rights to apply to you, there are still a lot of problems with it. Who buys/ owns the guns/ammo? Can you keep stuff like machine guns and anti-tank rockets in your closet? Besides, the National Guard has standardized weaponry and keeps their weapons in an armory. Would the courts rule that your right to bear arms only takes place during official military training/exercises? The National Guard thing seems more of an excuse to deny your 2nd Amendment rights.

Tom Servo said:
The very next mass shooting, we'd have seen sweeping bans and confiscation from an administration claiming, "it's constitutional; the Supreme Court said so."

I think we'd see calls for gun bans with or without mass shootings and with or without U.S. Supreme Court rulings that support or don't support gun bans.
 
Tom Servo said:
. . . . 2A litigation has a spotty and questionable history.
Not to mention short & shallow. While the 2A has been around every bit as long as the other 9 BoR Amendments, we need to remember that it wasn't incorporated to the states until at least 2008. That makes its history "short & shallow," in terms of having a body of law to provide guidance. It was incorporated very recently & there just haven't been many cases decided by SCOTUS to flesh out the exact contours of the RKBA.
 
Not to mention short & shallow.
Not short so much as shallow. We have cases like Nunn v. Georgia going back to the 1840's, but yeah, the history is pretty thin.

That said, we've had plenty of litigation on 2A grounds, but most of those cases were part of a last-ditch smorgasbord of appeals for some criminal who claimed it was unconstitutional for him to be prosecuted for the gun with the filed-off serial number he waved at police.

The NRA knew this. Like it or not, we need a sympathetic plaintiff for such litigation.* We got that with folks like Dick Heller and Otis McDonald, but the odds were still a bit scary in 2007.

* Rosa Parks was not the first person to bring action on the Montgomery county bus issue, but the NAACP realized she was more likely to gain popular support than Claudette Colvin, who was an unwed mother.
 
I extended my NRA membership and donated to the 2nd Amendment Foundation today. I believe we all have a fiduciary responsibility to defend the Constitution and it's principles, which have served us well for over 200 years. This includes all of it, not just the 2nd Amendment. The 4th Amendment has been under attack for some time now with mass warrantless data collection. The EFF and others have been instrumental in defending our digital rights. If you have the financial means, now is the time to help defend the principles embodied in our Constitution.
 
Back
Top