District of Columbia v. Heller - Page 7

Switchcraft · 06-26-2008, 01:53 AM

You just made several posts where you indicated that Montana should have no problem with this because it would only expand a state's right to clamp down on guns...I'm really just not following you on this line of reasoning.

The Bill of Rights, as written, was not about individual states at all. It was a specific detailing of limits on federal power. Whether you believe the 2nd Amendment is guarantee of an individual or a collective right, I have never heard anyone make the claim that it was an enumeration of a right that the state could severely limit on its own but that the feds could not.

War.mongeR1 · 06-26-2008, 11:58 AM

Drum roll..............................................
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

Ta-Da!

Karkianman101 · 06-26-2008, 12:46 PM

If only this happened last Thursday, my birthday would've been even more historical :-/

**USN_Squid** · 06-26-2008, 12:55 PM

Long live the 2nd Amendment!

**TurkishDelight** · 06-26-2008, 03:02 PM

Agreed!!!

**Puts on party hat**

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

You just made several posts where you indicated that Montana should have no problem with this because it would only expand a state's right to clamp down on guns...I'm really just not following you on this line of reasoning.

The Bill of Rights, as written, was not about individual states at all. It was a specific detailing of limits on federal power. Whether you believe the 2nd Amendment is guarantee of an individual or a collective right, I have never heard anyone make the claim that it was an enumeration of a right that the state could severely limit on its own but that the feds could not.

Right, the limits of federal power. Federal power is distinctly different from the powers afforded to the states. That is what the whole constitution is, a legal document saying here is what the federal government can do and everything else is given to the states.

It wasn't until the 14th amendment that individual rights where also protected from state interference. Up until that time states could, and did, limit the individual rights.

"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." Pasted from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

Right there it says "free State". Read the whole constitution. (I have in helping my wife prepare for her citizenship test.) Every time it uses the word "State" or "States" it is referring to exactly that. A State within the union. Not the United States. It uses "United States" when to referring to the federal government.

The 2nd amendment is talking about a States needing to be able to secure itself. To insure that a State can secure itself with a well regulated Militia the right to bear Arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say anything about the Federal Government being able to secure itself.

Now what does that mean? It means, for all practical purposes, the same thing as an individual right. For if a state decides to ban all bearing of Arms there is no way it can secure itself. The state being, of course, the people. Now the individuals in the government of the State might be able to secure itself by having a standing army but that doesn't secure the people. They are now at the mercy of the rulers. So the people still need firearms.

I just read the report about the ruling. It seems Scalia showed his true colors today. (I like the ruling BTW. Even if I disagree on the logic behind it.)

"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted." Pasted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

The problem is that he has said a couple of times that you don't interpret the Constitution. You simply read it. It means what it says. He, right there, interpreted what it means. He used history, both before and after, to make a ruling.

**[tR]Greasy_mullet** · 06-26-2008, 03:36 PM

It's scary that they even had to answer this question at all and even more so that the case was close at 5-4. But the case leaves much trouble still as they stated places that guns can be restricted.

I personally have no issue over some regulation as long as such regulation does not get in the way of the right to keep AND bear arms. Like I think people should take a 3 part safty course every so often like you do with a drivers license and pass a solid background check. The course should teach safty, use, and maintence then allow a more advanced class for those that want it.

However, all those that complete such class are not only legally able to own their firearms but also carry them and carry them anywhere including schools.

Switchcraft · 06-26-2008, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

"Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by "the historical narrative" both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted." Pasted from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/

The problem is that he has said a couple of times that you don't interpret the Constitution. You simply read it. It means what it says. He, right there, interpreted what it means. He used history, both before and after, to make a ruling.

No, the opinion, which I recommend you read, is very clear that they made the ruling because the 2nd Amendment means what it says. You're taking a 3 word quote from a news article written by a journalist and deciding how you think the decision was made.

As to the definition of "State" in the Amendment, well...no. You're not correct. The word state shows up in Article I and Article III, and in both instances is not talking about a state of the Union. From the opinion:

Quote:

b. “Security of a Free State.” The phrase “security of
a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued,
see 478 F. 3d, at 405, and n. 10. Joseph Story wrote in his
treatise on the Constitution that “the word ‘state’ is used
in various senses [and in] its most enlarged sense, it
means the people composing a particular nation or community.”
1 Story §208; see also 3 id., §1890 (in reference
to the Second Amendment’s prefatory clause: “The militia
is the natural defence of a free country”). It is true that
the term “State” elsewhere in the Constitution refers to
individual States, but the phrase “security of a free state”
and close variations seem to have been terms of art in
18th-century political discourse, meaning a “ ‘free country’
” or free polity. See Volokh, “Necessary to the Security
of a Free State,” 83 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1, 5 (2007); see,
e.g., 4 Blackstone 151 (1769); Brutus Essay III (Nov. 15,
1787), in The Essential Antifederalist 251, 253 (W. Allen
& G. Lloyd eds., 2d ed. 2002). Moreover, the other instances
of “state” in the Constitution are typically accompanied
by modifiers making clear that the reference is to
the several States—“each state,” “several states,” “any
state,” “that state,” “particular states,” “one state,” “no
state.” And the presence of the term “foreign state” in
Article I and Article III shows that the word “state” did
not have a single meaning in the Constitution.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

No, the opinion, which I recommend you read, is very clear that they made the ruling because the 2nd Amendment means what it says. You're taking a 3 word quote from a news article written by a journalist and deciding how you think the decision was made.

As to the definition of "State" in the Amendment, well...no. You're not correct. The word state shows up in Article I and Article III, and in both instances is not talking about a state of the Union. From the opinion:

I didn't find the term "State" refering to the United States as a whole. It did refer to "foriegn state".

But I might have missed it. Could you point it out?

But like I said, I disagree with the the logic of the ruling and interpretation of the amendment. They are taking into account "terms of art" of that period. Which is fine but like I said it goes against what Scalia claims to do. I am sure you can find other phrases in the constitution that are "terms of art" during the time that would change the meaning.

I also find it interesting that in the term "foriegn state" it is lower case. But in every other use of state where it refers to either a State or the U.S., that I can see, it is capatilized. Significant? I think so.

Switchcraft · 06-26-2008, 04:15 PM

Your position is that we should not pay attention to what the words meant at the time?
How would that guarantee any kind of consistancy in the law?

Switchcraft · 06-26-2008, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

I also find it interesting that in the term "foriegn state" it is lower case. But in every other use of state where it refers to either a State or the U.S., that I can see, it is capatilized. Significant? I think so.

I think that YOU think it wasn't capitalized in the Constitution is significant. All of my copies have it in there. But I think you're making a perfect example of why we need to pay attention to how things were written at the time...at the time, it was common for all nouns to be capitalized. Now that we don't do that, it's common in our language to assign particular emphasis to a capitalized word.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

Your position is that we should not pay attention to what the words meant at the time?
How would that guarantee any kind of consistancy in the law?

The thing that gets me is that some are taking the writers of the constitution as idiots who didn't know how to express themselves through writing.

That is absolutly silly. I cannot imagine that it was written and nobody noticed that "State" was used when "United States" would make the issue more clear. That the rest of the constitution makes it very clear when "United States" should have the power or is the thing being referenced.

Why didn't the writers use "terms of art" throughout the document? After reading it a couple of times I am very impressed on how succinct the document is. I don't see terms of art used in other parts of the document.

I would also say that the writers knew that artsy language can confuse the issue. Wouldn't they go to every effort to avoid that?

And the "term of art" is exactly that. Why would they take that term then capitolize the word "State". They didn't capitolize the word in "foriegn state".

These guys took most of their pride through the written word. It is how almost all comunication took place in the day. You had to be clear in you writting because it might take weeks or months to get a response. A misunderstanding would go on for long periods of time and could harm the situation beyond repair.

And dozens of these types read and then agreed on the wording. And nobody noticed that "United States" was not used when that is what they meant?

Whatever. Our founders where not incompentent with the written word and they wrote this thing to be eternal. They knew there where ways to modify what was there if future generations did not like it so there was no reason to leave things ambiguous.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Switchcraft

I think that YOU think it wasn't capitalized in the Constitution is significant. All of my copies have it in there. But I think you're making a perfect example of why we need to pay attention to how things were written at the time...at the time, it was common for all nouns to be capitalized. Now that we don't do that, it's common in our language to assign particular emphasis to a capitalized word.

You could be right about that.

However every one I have looked up on the internet and the book we bought for my wife to study has it in lower case.

But even so the use of the word state in that case is clearly spelled out. It is refering to foriegn states. There is no misunderstanding.

Switchcraft · 06-26-2008, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

The thing that gets me is that some are taking the writers of the constitution as idiots who didn't know how to express themselves through writing.

That is absolutly silly. I cannot imagine that it was written and nobody noticed that "State" was used when "United States" would make the issue more clear. That the rest of the constitution makes it very clear when "United States" should have the power or is the thing being referenced.

Why didn't the writers use "terms of art" throughout the document? After reading it a couple of times I am very impressed on how succinct the document is. I don't see terms of art used in other parts of the document.

I would also say that the writers knew that artsy language can confuse the issue. Wouldn't they go to every effort to avoid that?

And the "term of art" is exactly that. Why would they take that term then capitolize the word "State". They didn't capitolize the word in "foriegn state".

These guys took most of their pride through the written word. It is how almost all comunication took place in the day. You had to be clear in you writting because it might take weeks or months to get a response. A misunderstanding would go on for long periods of time and could harm the situation beyond repair.

And dozens of these types read and then agreed on the wording. And nobody noticed that "United States" was not used when that is what they meant?

Whatever. Our founders where not incompentent with the written word and they wrote this thing to be eternal. They knew there where ways to modify what was there if future generations did not like it so there was no reason to leave things ambiguous.

They didn't have to specify the the United States because the Bill of Rights is a document limiting Federal power. The Amendments were proposed to assuage concerns of ideology between the Federalists and the anti-Federalists that might have caused the Constitution to not be ratified in the first place.

Even if you could make the argument that the word "State" as it appears in the 2nd Amendment means "an individual state like Virginia, and not the United States as a whole" it would not somehow change the meaning. The Amendment doesn't say "The right of the people shall not be infringed by States but can be infringed by the Federal government." It says "shall not be infringed."

Given the issues at the time of the founding, I can believe an argument could be made that the Amendment could be seen as limiting Federal but not State powers. But there is no way that it was seen as limiting State but not Federal powers.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 06-26-2008, 05:45 PM

You are right. I just looked up one of the originals in the Library of Congress and it is "foriegn State".

Doesn't change my thinking. The writers made it clear which "state" they where speaking of in every other part of the document and they did in the 2nd as well.

06-26-2008, 01:53 AM	#91 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller You just made several posts where you indicated that Montana should have no problem with this because it would only expand a state's right to clamp down on guns...I'm really just not following you on this line of reasoning. The Bill of Rights, as written, was not about individual states at all. It was a specific detailing of limits on federal power. Whether you believe the 2nd Amendment is guarantee of an individual or a collective right, I have never heard anyone make the claim that it was an enumeration of a right that the state could severely limit on its own but that the feds could not.

06-26-2008, 11:58 AM	#92 (permalink)
War.mongeR1 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 1,401	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Drum roll.............................................. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25390404/ Ta-Da! __________________ "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

06-26-2008, 12:46 PM	#93 (permalink)
Karkianman101 Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: East Lansing Age: 20 Posts: 1,546	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller If only this happened last Thursday, my birthday would've been even more historical :-/

06-26-2008, 12:55 PM	#94 (permalink)
USN_Squid Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Denver Age: 38 Posts: 3,173	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Long live the 2nd Amendment! __________________ New to TG? Start here!

06-26-2008, 03:02 PM	#95 (permalink)
TurkishDelight Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 942	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Agreed!!! Puts on party hat __________________ \|TG-X\|Turkish

06-26-2008, 03:36 PM	#97 (permalink)
[tR]Greasy_mullet Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Tennessee Age: 30 Posts: 717	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller It's scary that they even had to answer this question at all and even more so that the case was close at 5-4. But the case leaves much trouble still as they stated places that guns can be restricted. I personally have no issue over some regulation as long as such regulation does not get in the way of the right to keep AND bear arms. Like I think people should take a 3 part safty course every so often like you do with a drivers license and pass a solid background check. The course should teach safty, use, and maintence then allow a more advanced class for those that want it. However, all those that complete such class are not only legally able to own their firearms but also carry them and carry them anywhere including schools.

06-26-2008, 04:15 PM	#100 (permalink)
Switchcraft Join Date: May 2003 Location: New York, NY Age: 31 Posts: 1,096	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller Your position is that we should not pay attention to what the words meant at the time? How would that guarantee any kind of consistancy in the law?

06-26-2008, 05:45 PM	#105 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,862	Re: District of Columbia v. Heller You are right. I just looked up one of the originals in the Library of Congress and it is "foriegn State". Doesn't change my thinking. The writers made it clear which "state" they where speaking of in every other part of the document and they did in the 2nd as well. __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links