|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, April 05 2013 @ 10:17 AM EDT |
This topic is political, divisive, and too inflammatory.
All due respect for your ideas and all that, but I think you
should take them elsewhere.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Friday, April 05 2013 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
This isn't such a good place to discuss this, but
since I didn't see this
immediately, I'll answer
your points, so others are not confused.
First, free
speech is not total. There are
restrictions already, when there is a
strong
governmental interest. You can't yell "Fire"
in a crowded theater. That
isn't violating
the Constitution, that restriction.
Similarly with the gun
thingie. If you read
the US Supreme Court's decision in District
of Columbia v.
Heller,
you will find that the court stated
that there can be certain
types of restrictions.
From the syllabus:
2. Like most rights, the
Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For
example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or
state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts
of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the
historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual
weapons. Pp. 54–56.
From Justice Scalia's majority
opinion:
There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and
history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and
bear arms. Of course the right was not unlimited, just as the First Amendment ’s
right of free speech was not, see, e.g., United States v. Williams, 553 U. S.
___ (2008). Thus, we do not read the Second Amendment to protect the right of
citizens to carry arms for any sort of confrontation, just as we do not read the
First Amendment to protect the right of citizens to speak for any purpose.
...
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not
unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and
courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g.,
Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the
majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that
prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second
Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at
489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The
American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). 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.26
We also recognize
another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said,
as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common
use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous
and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the
Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C.
Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W.
Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H.
Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the
Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the
Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N.
C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v.
State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military
service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right
is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the
conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification
was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the
sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well
be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th
century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful
against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have
limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right
cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Back in the
19th
century, the court said in Presser v. Illinois the
Second Amendment has
no authority over states, for example, just the
federal
government. So the states can decide they want certain such
restrictions.
You can read about the history here.
So your
absolutist view of the US Constitution
is not legal. In fact, one could even
say it's not
Constitutional. Just so you know. But I prefer that
you take
the conversation elsewhere, after you respond to this, should you choose to.
It's not altogether off topic
for Groklaw, in that we do discuss Constitutional
issues,
but in the past, comments arrive that are deeply offensive
and political
in nature, and politics is what Groklaw never
wades into, or we try not to, as
an editorial decision I made years ago. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Friday, April 05 2013 @ 11:18 AM EDT |
As I read that article, it appears to me to say that US citizens have the right
to join a militia, and UNDER MILITIA ORDERS bear arms.
Also, I gather that this clause was viewed in a very different light before the
founding of the NRA.
It's probably very enlightening to study the way the Constitution has been
interpreted throughout history - this clause and others!
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|