BitYakin
Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
please show me a SINGLE supreme court case where that is the conclusion!
UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. 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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=307&invol=174
One of the reasons Heller got such attention was that it reversed a long-standing approach to the Second Amendment.
Background info on Second Amendment jurisprudence:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=supreme+court+second+amendment+cases&gbv=2&oq=supreme+court+sec&gs_l=heirloom-hp.1.4.0l10.1393.5626.0.9720.17.13.0.4.4.0.176.1139.11j2.13.0....0...1ac.1.24.heirloom-hp..0.17.1163.U3VB8IPL4sA
The top link is to a handy page from the Library of Congress. For some reason, CM won't let me link to it directly.
Nut graf:
Since United States v. Miller, most federal court decisions considering the Second Amendment have interpreted it as preserving the authority of the states to maintain militias.
sorry, but in the miller case it does NOT say the right to bear arms is limited to militias, it says since that SPECIF gun is not part of milita use its not covered...
in the NEXT link you wanted me to look at, it says
In cases in the 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does not bar state regulation of firearms. For example, in United States v. Cruikshank (external link), 92 U.S. 542, 553 (1875), the Court stated that the Second Amendment “has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,” and in Presser v. Illinois (external link), 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886), the Court reiterated that the Second Amendment “is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the National government, and not upon that of the States.” Although most of the rights in the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated (PDF) into the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment (external link) and thus cannot be impaired by state governments, the Second Amendment has never been so incorporated.
no where does it say the right to bear arms is LIMITED to militias, it DOES say they felt STATES had a right to regulat arms, matter of a fact it does says until heller NO RULING on that specific issue had be rendered it just says so far it had not been incorperated, not that it had been established otherwise...
and its not in that particular link in the same case part of the desicion reads, and I am parphrasing, since in all other parts of the bill of rights the "PEOPLE" is considered to impart those rights to INDIVIDUALS, there is no reason to feel that in this one SINGLE rights it should be considered DIFFERANT than all the others. if in this instance the states can regulate a right, then states should be ALSO able to reguate other rights, like freedom of speech etc etc etc... why is this one single right differant from ALL the OTHERS?
and to that my own opinion, if inevery other part of the bill of rights it guarentees individual rights, you'd think if they means something DIFFERANT in this area they would have said something DIFFERANT. no one writes a book or document where in 99% of the document the word dog refers to a furry 4 legged animal, EXCEPT in ONE PARAGRAGH it means a two legged winged animal!
PS. in your original link the stament, "In other words, according to the Supreme Court, and the lower courts as well, the amendment conferred on state militias a right to bear arms—but did not give individuals a right to own or carry a weapon" STRONGLY suggests heller NEVER HAPPENED.
it doesn't says EXCEPT IN heller they ruled blah blah blah. it pretty much outright says ALL supreme court case have ruled in the opinion the author is trying to express
< Message edited by BitYakin -- 9/22/2013 2:40:14 PM >
|
RE: Teaching Our Children - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread