Would You Accept a Supreme Court Ruling That there is No Individual Right Under

V

vitesse9

New member
The Second Amendment to Keep and Bear Arms?

Eventually, we are going to get a Court that is willing to hear a Second Amendment case, and eventually, the Court will "decide" between the absurd "collective rights" interpretation and the "individual rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment.

I hate to say it, but I fear the Court will read the Second Amendment right out of the Constitution. If that day comes, will you accept the Court's interpretation or will you continue to believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms?
 
The Supremes have already made

a travesty of law and logic by trashing the First Amendment with the "Campaign Finance Reform" decision and the Fifth Amendment in the recent New London zoning decision. :barf: :barf:

Why would ANY part of the BOR be considered safe? :eek:
 
"Resistance to tyrants is obediance to God." -B. Franklin

The constitutional responsibility of the Supreme Court - like all other courts -
is to interpret the LAW based on the Constitution, NOT to interpret the Constitution based on the law.

Doing the latter rather than the former is diametrically opposite the intention of The Founders and is the root cause of the current legal and constitutional chaos we see taking place on a daily basis.

The arrogance of a prima donna judge or judges twisting, trampling, distorting and gutting the Constitution and Bill of Rights to make it "fit" an outcome they want is an unthinkable outrage.

IMHO, the Supreme Court can make all the rulings it wants to about guns and the Second Amendment; my response will be the same as it always has been:
MOLON LAVE.
 
What would really change? It would be the equivalent of the New London ruling. The states that mostly believe there is no 2A right already infringe it without obstruction. California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc. Other states would remain the way they are: Texas, Virginia, etc. It will just come down to the states. That's the way it already is in practice. The 2nd means nothing if the state majority party says it means nothing and the courts won't touch it.
 
What would really change? It would be the equivalent of the New London ruling. The states that mostly believe there is no 2A right already infringe it without obstruction. California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc. Other states would remain the way they are: Texas, Virginia, etc. It will just come down to the states. That's the way it already is in practice. The 2nd means nothing if the state majority party says it means nothing and the courts won't touch it.
Click to expand...

Thats 14th amendment/incorporation issue - even if the Supremes ruled the 2nd amendment to be an individual right with the same level of constitutional scrutiny as the first amendment, it would still be meaningless as applied to the states unless and until they hold the 2nd amendment incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment.

That said, I have little doubt if confronted with the issue, they would find it (the 2A) to be an individual right. Even if they were to both find it an individual right AND incorporated to the states, it would still be largely meaningless. As we all know, no right is absolute. Consider that despite the fact "Congress shall make no law..." even the right to free speech and the right to freedom of religion are subject to some constitutional restraints. You can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Nor can you smoke dope just because your religion may mandate it. "Shall not be infringed" in the 2A would certainly be subject to similar constitutional restraints albeit at a lower level of constitutional scrutiny.

OTOH, if Bush replaces O'connor and Rehnquist with two Thomas clones, we may yet get back to something much closer to what the founding fathers envisioned.
 
My only comfort is living in a state where the constitution specifically grants RKBA as individual and the prevailing federal circuit court agrees. The AWB was clearly unconstitutional by that standard but nobody was able to stop it with a legal challenge. So while my state may never infringe on my rights, I always have to fear an anti-gun majority in the US Congress.
 
I hate to say it but yes, there are many that would go around and follow orders and seize all guns and ammo that one may have, with the use of force if need be, we've all seen that.

I hate to say it but with the court as it is now, the motto seems to be "As England goes, so do we".

We are basically, at full circle. We were English subjects, we fought and won against them, we are now, almost, Englist subjects, just under a different name.

Wayne
 
I agree Wayne. It appears to me the situation is getting back to its originality. If nothing else, it does help put into perspective what enormous opposition and hardships the Founders must have gone through to fight full-on with a powerful government that thinks you are a radical extremist faction that has little sympathy from the regular subjects.
 
I hate to say it, but I fear the Court will read the Second Amendment right out of the Constitution. If that day comes, will you accept the Court's interpretation or will you continue to believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...


I tend to be of the view that there is one true way to interpret each passage of the Constitution, and if the court disingenuously "reads into it" a meaning other than what is objectively there, then the court's decision is intellectually, ethically, morally and legally bankrupt, and need not be heeded.

WE KNOW what the Second Amendment means.
WE NEED NOT COUNTENANCE anyone telling us that it means other than what we know it means.
(WE also know that when "they" tell us it means something else, not even THEY believe their lies. They're just throwing the "Hail Mary," hoping they'll put one past us without us realizing it. The "collective interpretation" is just so much bulls#!t, and no one who promotes it actually can believe it in good faith. You have to engage in doublethink to even consider believing it.)


-blackmind
 
What would really change? It would be the equivalent of the New London ruling. The states that mostly believe there is no 2A right already infringe it without obstruction. California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc. Other states would remain the way they are: Texas, Virginia, etc. It will just come down to the states. That's the way it already is in practice.
Click to expand...
Shaggy-
That may have been true prior to Gonzales v. Raich. No longer, however. If SCOTUS can grant fedgov control over legal behavior like growing a plant, simply because that plant "might" be sold across state lines, certainly it would view firearms no differently. Their "ownership" in Texas **could*** affect the commerce, errr economy, of ****illegal**** sales of same in New Jersey.

From a criminal law standpoint there are no States anymore.
Rich
 
I need someone with better understanding to correct me, but didn't SCOTUS rule that individuals have rights, and states and fed gov have authority and power? How does that work with the other rulings that the 2nd is collective? The rulings seem to contradict to me, which could be good in a case.

ETA: Hmm... My 69th post...
 
In that case, it would be time to activate the Second Amendment and the Unorganized Militia, authorized by Federal Law!!

The true power of armed citizens is what the socialists fear the most!!
 
I hate to say it, but I fear the Court will read the Second Amendment right out of the Constitution. If that day comes, will you accept the Court's interpretation or will you continue to believe that you have an individual right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...
You need to understand that both the basic principles of the Natural Rights of Man and the concept of a United States preceded the Constitution. Think of the Constitution more of a free trade and mutual defence agreement between sovereign States, sort of an 18th century NAFTA + NATO and you will better understand the original intent of the framers.
 
Not quite Meek, The constitution was a codifying document of rights given by God to man, it neither takes away nor gives new rights, just puts down in writing what we had before. The constitutions real purpose is to establish a leash on government for all time. What the founders knew about but even they could not prevent on paper was the cancer like growth of government and its unending need to increase its power and control over what are rapidly becoming surfs not citizens in fact if not yet in name. That is why the 2nd and the section codifying the citizens right to abolish said government should we need to was written into the document
 
Before anyone dons cammo and takes to the water tower, I agree with the posters who say basically not much will change either way. An individual ruling would give more legitimacy to the 2A in the eyes of lawmakers but you will not see a general change in society. Heck,a negative ruling might even be positive. After Kelo (the worst decision of this decade,imo) a number of states have passed or considered a no-takings law in response. I would rather see things enacted by legislators than dictated by courts. So there might be a rush by citizens to enact stronger pro-RKBA laws in their home states.
In any case, after Kelo no one has had their home seized, right? Life has gone on pretty much as usual. This would be similar.
 
I wish I could take credit for this but I can not. Someone on one of the boards has this in their posts:

"IF IT'S TIME TO BURY YOUR GUNS, IT'S ALSO TIME TO DIG THEM UP!"
 
+1 to blackmind and Sulaco2. Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant rights to citizens; they recognize those rights which a legitimate government is bound to respect; and, if it ceases to do so, it is forever illegitimate thereafter: "When in the course of human events...."
 
Whether I accept the Supreme Court's ruling is not relevant. In fact, there are a lot of laws I don't accept. However, I do realize that I am still accountable for my actions as per the law and how it is interpreted. While I may not accept it, there will be a legal system in place to enforce it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top