[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Bang / Guns
See other Bang / Guns Articles

Title: Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 22, 2016
Author: By Eugene Volokh
Post Date: 2016-03-22 20:12:32 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 12412
Comments: 77

Unanimous pro-Second-Amendment stun gun decision from the Supreme Court

By Eugene Volokh March 22 at 8:16 AM In Commonwealth v. Caetano,

The Massachusetts high court upheld Massachusetts’ total ban on stun gun possession. Yesterday’s Caetano v. Massachusetts decision from the Supreme Court reversed that Massachusetts decision and sent the case back to the Massachusetts court for further review (presumably to consider, for instance, whether the ban may still be justified by some sufficiently important government interest):

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” This is inconsistent with D.C. v. Heller‘s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

A few thoughts (note that I co-filed an friend-of-the-court brief supporting review in this case):

1. This is a unanimous decision, unlike the court’s earlier Second Amendment cases — D.C. v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago — which were 5-4. I doubt that Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, who were in the dissent in McDonald, are reconciled to those cases; I suspect they would be willing to overrule them if they had five votes to do so. But in this case, they were willing to accept them as given.

2. It was also a decision handed down without oral argument and without full briefing on the merits. (The parties filed a petition for certiorari, a brief in opposition, and a reply brief, but those formally dealt just with the question whether the court should hear the case.) The court thus seemed to view this as a very easy case.

3. The summary reversal also helps explain why the justices reversed only the Massachusetts high court’s conclusion that stun guns were definitionally excluded from Second Amendment protection: Whether the stun gun ban may still be justified is a more complicated question, which many justices may hesitate to resolve without oral argument and full briefing; and those justices might have thought that there’s no need to devote such resources to the case now, since the matter might go away if the Massachusetts high court on remand holds in Caetano’s favor.

4. Caetano’s petition and our amicus brief argued that there was a split between the reasoning of this decision and the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision in State v. DeCiccio (which held that the Second Amendment protects dirks and police batons), as well as between this decision and the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision in State v. Yanna, which struck down the Michigan stun gun ban. But the majority mentioned neither case, and Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence in the judgment mentioned only Yanna, and that just in passing. The justices thus didn’t seem interested in the presence of this sort of disagreement among lower courts, though the presence of such a disagreement is often seen as a very important factor in the Supreme Court’s deciding whether to grant review. The justices just seemed to think the reasoning of the decision was plainly wrong, and that was reason enough to reverse — something the justices very rarely do (at least setting aside cases where a state government lost below).

5. Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas would have gone further and would have held outright that the Massachusetts ban was unconstitutional; their opinion was fairly long, but here’s an excerpt from the end:

The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. But the right to bear other weapons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. Moreover, a weapon is an effective means of self-defense only if one is prepared to use it, and it is presumptuous to tell Caetano she should have been ready to shoot the father of her two young children if she wanted to protect herself. Courts should not be in the business of demanding that citizens use more force for self-defense than they are comfortable wielding.

Countless people may have reservations about using deadly force, whether for moral, religious, or emotional reasons — or simply out of fear of killing the wrong person. “Self-defense,” however, “is a basic right.” I am not prepared to say that a State may force an individual to choose between exercising that right and following her conscience, at least where both can be accommodated by a weapon already in widespread use across the Nation.

* * *

A State’s most basic responsibility is to keep its people safe. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts was either unable or unwilling to do what was necessary to protect Jaime Caetano, so she was forced to protect herself. To make matters worse, the Commonwealth chose to deploy its prosecutorial resources to prosecute and convict her of a criminal offense for arming herself with a nonlethal weapon that may well have saved her life. The Supreme Judicial Court then affirmed her conviction on the flimsiest of grounds. This Court’s grudging per curiam now sends the case back to that same court. And the consequences for Caetano may prove more tragic still, as her conviction likely bars her from ever bearing arms for self- defense.

If the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming the people than about keeping them safe.

I assume that Alito and Thomas are trying to (1) persuade lower courts, both the Massachusetts courts and other courts, that such bans are indeed unconstitutional and (2) to inform them that at least two justices are firmly against such stun gun bans — and the views of the six other justices are unknown, but might also ultimately align with Alito and Thomas, if the matter returns to the Court for full merits review.

6. Alito’s introductory paragraphs also struck me as quite rhetorically powerful — a fine example of the lawyer’s art:

After a “bad altercation” with an abusive boyfriend put her in the hospital, Jaime Caetano found herself homeless and “in fear for [her] life.” She obtained multiple restraining orders against her abuser, but they proved futile. So when a friend offered her a stun gun “for self-defense against [her] former boy friend,” Caetano accepted the weapon.

It is a good thing she did. One night after leaving work, Caetano found her ex- boyfriend “waiting for [her] outside.” He “started screaming” that she was “not gonna [expletive deleted] work at this place” any more because she “should be home with the kids” they had together. Caetano’s abuser towered over her by nearly a foot and outweighed her by close to 100 pounds. But she didn’t need physical strength to protect herself. She stood her ground, displayed the stun gun, and announced: “I’m not gonna take this anymore…. I don’t wanna have to [use the stun gun on] you, but if you don’t leave me alone, I’m gonna have to.” The gambit worked. The ex-boyfriend “got scared and he left [her] alone.”

It is settled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms that applies against both the Federal Government and the States. That right vindicates the “basic right” of “individual self-defense.” Caetano’s encounter with her violent ex-boyfriend illustrates the connection between those fundamental rights: By arming herself, Caetano was able to protect against a physical threat that restraining orders had proved useless to prevent. And, commendably, she did so by using a weapon that posed little, if any, danger of permanently harming either herself or the father of her children.

Under Massachusetts law, however, Caetano’s mere possession of the stun gun that may have saved her life made her a criminal. When police later discovered the weapon, she was arrested, tried, and convicted. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the conviction, holding that a stun gun “is not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”

This reasoning defies our decision in Heller, which rejected as “bordering on the frivolous” the argument “that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.” The decision below also does a grave disservice to vulnerable individuals like Caetano who must defend themselves because the State will not.

7. There’s a stun gun case being litigated now in D.C., and there are similar stun gun bans in New York, New Jersey, Hawaii and Rhode Island, as well as (as of 2009, when I wrote my “Nonlethal Self-Defense, (Almost Entirely) Nonlethal Weapons, and the Rights to Keep and Bear Arms and Defend Life,” article) the Virgin Islands, the Annapolis/Baltimore area counties, New Orleans, Philadelphia, Tacoma and several other cities. I expect there will be challenges to some of those laws as well. Connecticut, Illinois, Fargo, and Oklahoma City also ban carrying stun guns, though not possessing them at home; those laws might likewise be challenged. (Caetano herself was carrying a stun gun in public, but neither the Massachusetts ban nor the Massachusetts high court decision distinguished home possession of a stun gun from possession in public, so the Caetano Supreme Court opinion doesn’t decide whether the Second Amendment applies to possessing stun guns — or any other weapons — in public places


Poster Comment:

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: all you prohibitionists, --- Vicomte13, Nolu Chan, misterwhite, roscoe, ---- Y'ALL (#0)

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."

Long overdue

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-22   20:17:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: tpaine (#0)

What is the original link ?

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

Stoner  posted on  2016-03-22   20:21:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: Stoner (#2) (Edited)

If I told you, I'd be in deep doo-doo. Google Volokhs name if you really care.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-22   20:57:24 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: tpaine (#3)

" If I told you, I'd be in deep doo-doo "

Well, I certainly would not want to put you in such a place. So, I will follow your advice, LOL

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't

Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.

There are no Carthaginian terrorists.

President Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. --Clint Eastwood

"I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within." -- General Douglas MacArthur

Stoner  posted on  2016-03-22   21:02:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: tpaine (#0) (Edited)

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,

Prima facie, yes, but subject to further consideration and analysis.

One cannot simply ban a weapon as not covered by the Constitutional protection. One has to have a defensible reason to do it.

A suitcase nuke is a bearable weapon, but possession of one is not protected by the right to keep and bear arms.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-22   22:04:10 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)

Your post is a convoluted pile of mumbo-jumbo.

buckeroo  posted on  2016-03-22   22:41:43 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: buckeroo (#6)

No, it's quite clear. The Supreme Court said prima facie. That means "at first look", "at first blush". It does not mean "after any analysis".

The court said only that a state can't say that stun guns are not "arms" out of hand, and thereby evade the 2nd Amendment. An actual analysis has to be performed. That's why the Supremes remanded the case, so that the state court will do that analysis.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-22   23:28:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: buckeroo (#6)

Let me ask you the same question I've asked tpaine five times: does the Second Amendment protect a personal right to own a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-22   23:29:32 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: Vicomte13 (#8)

does the Second Amendment protect a personal right to own a nuclear weapon? Yes or no?

It's a beautiful dream, no matter what naysayers and scolds like you say.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-22   23:52:17 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#7)

The Supreme Court said prima facie. That means "at first look", "at first blush".

Poor vicomte, doesn't even have a very good understanding of the legal meaning of:---

pri·ma fa·ci·e

adjective & adverb LAW

based on the first impression;- accepted as correct until proved otherwise. :- In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-23   0:24:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: tpaine (#10)

I think I am beginning to see the problem, tpaine. What I wrote extemporaneously says the same thing as what you quoted from a law dictionary. And you don't realize that. You think you've actually "scored a point" by quoting a dictionary that says exactly what I said, in slightly different words.

Now I feel really bad. I didn't realize until now that I was arguing with somebody who has a learning disability. I'm sorry I picked on you. I didn't know. You take care of yourself, ok?

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   7:09:37 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#12. To: nolo chan, vicomte13 (#0)

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.” In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.”

The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” This is inconsistent with D.C. v. Heller‘s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends … to … arms … that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” in an attempt to apply one “important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughly modern invention.” By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found “nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.” But Heller rejected the proposition “that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”

ping

потому что Бог хочет это тот путь

SOSO  posted on  2016-03-23   12:57:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)

The Supreme Court said prima facie. That means "at first look", "at first blush".

Poor vicomte, doesn't even have a very good understanding of the legal meaning of:---

pri·ma fa·ci·e

--- accepted as correct until proved otherwise. :- In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.

What I wrote extemporaneously says the same thing as what you quoted from a law dictionary.

Dream on 'Vicomte'. -- In fact, by now, your writings herein cast doubt on ALL your claims of being a lawyer, legal scholar, etc.

Granted, you have a every glib way with words, -- but the anti-american agit- prop in your rants fools no one. You are not what you claim to be..

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-23   13:24:33 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#14. To: Vicomte13, buckeroo, *Bang List* (#5)

has to have a defensible reason to do it

suitcase nuke is a bearable weapon, but possession of one is not protected

Forbidden by the 2nd.

The constitution does NOT say that YOU get to decide. You'll need to get an amendment passed for your infringement schemes.

Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority Now!


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-03-23   13:26:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#15. To: hondo68 (#14) (Edited)

So hondo, you're another one.

Tpaine and Hondo, two 2nd Amendment standard bearers who really believe that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a personal nuclear weapon in their basement.

This is why you are losing your gun rights. Your absolutist position is nuts, and nuts shouldn't have weapons.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   13:43:25 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#16. To: Vicomte13, Y'ALL (#15)

Tpaine and Hondo, two 2nd Amendment standard bearers who really believe that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a personal nuclear weapon in their basement.

Poor vicomte, reduced to hyping a debate he's not smart enough to win.

A personal nuclear weapon in the basement has never been at issue, -- as obviously, reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve that problem.

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd, like vicomte. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

In a way, they're as fanatical as Muslims.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-23   14:01:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: tpaine (#16)

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd, like vicomte. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

The problem is that folks like you, and apparently Hondo, will recognize no checks or balances on the 2nd Amendment. The question of nuclear weapons is a softball question, to which the obvious answer is "No".

But the fact that you cannot bring yourself to answer "No" even to that is what makes you irrational. And your irrationality on the matter means that you're not included in the councils that have to set the boundaries on these things.

You never get like-minded people on the Supreme Court, because crazy people don't get appointed to the Court. Unreasonable, irrational people who cannot simply acknowledge that, yes, there are in fact limits on the right to keep and bear arms, even when speaking of the obvious case of nuclear weapons, are not people who are allowed into positions of authority, because they demonstrate a lack of reality and judgment.

Instead of just answering that "No, there's no right of individuals to keep and bear nuclear weapons" - the only possible right answer to the question - you resort to attacking my character and my intelligence.

I'm not an opponent of the 2nd Amendment. I'm pretty neutral about it, or if anything inclined to support it. But I can't ally myself with nuts who call me a Muslim because they think that individuals have the right, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, to keep a nuke in their basement.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   14:28:04 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: Vicomte13, tpaine (#15)

nuts shouldn't have weapons.

But they do, and frequently will. All of the leading nuts throughout history have had the WMD's of their time. Popes, Kings, Dictators use them to gain and keep power. Some recent nuts with nukes... Jimmy Carter, GHW Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, Obama.

The second amendment is there as a counterbalance to these k0oKs. Obviously parity or better is necessary to achieve that. Thus the all inclusive terms "arms", and "the people".

Your speculation and spin is not written there, but the terms above are. Tpaine will not admit his right to whatever weapons he wishes to possess, but we have the right nonetheless.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-03-23   14:30:09 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#0)

the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment

The protected guns are bows, arrows and muzzle-loading smooth bore muskets.

A Pole  posted on  2016-03-23   15:05:51 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: hondo68 (#18)

So, you really are standing pat on your right, under the 2nd Amendment, to keep nuclear weapons in your basement.

My view of the 2nd Amendment is changing based on these conversations.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   15:48:50 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#17)

Tpaine and Hondo, two 2nd Amendment standard bearers who really believe that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a personal nuclear weapon in their basement.

Poor vicomte, reduced to hyping a debate he's not smart enough to win.

A personal nuclear weapon in the basement has never been at issue, -- as obviously, reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve that problem.

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd, like vicomte. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

In a way, they're as fanatical as Muslims.

Instead of just answering that "No, there's no right of individuals to keep and bear nuclear weapons" - the only possible right answer to the question -

It's a leading question, as any lawyer would know, which I've answered on point ad nauseam. Then I went on to question your character and intelligence for trying to use it in the debate..

- you resort to attacking my character and my intelligence.

As is well deserved.

I'm not an opponent of the 2nd Amendment. I'm pretty neutral about it, or if anything inclined to support it.

Your own words posted above in many ways, prove the opposite.

But I can't ally myself with nuts who call me a Muslim because they think that individuals have the right, guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, to keep a nuke in their basement.

The 2nd doesn't guarantee anyone having a nuke in the basement, as I've said before, and as you're unable to understand, -- being the fanatic you are.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-23   17:20:44 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#0)

The SCOTUS action of yesterday was a grant of cert and grant of a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/caetano-v-massachusetts/

Mar 21 2016

Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).

- - - - - - - - - -

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,”

The quote is from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 582 (2008), not from Caetano.

and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States."

The quote is from McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, 750 (2010), not from Caetano.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

1 Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

JAIME CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS

No. 14–10078. Decided March 21, 2016 PER CURIAM.

The Court has held that “the Second Amendment ex­tends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amend­ment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Su­preme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massa­chusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015).

The court offered three explanations to support itsholding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582.

The court next asked whether stun guns are “dangerous per se at common law and unusual,” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694, in an attempt to apply one “importantlimitation on the right to keep and carry arms,” Heller, 554 U. S., at 627; see ibid. (referring to “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and

[2]

unusual weapons’”). In so doing, the court concluded thatstun guns are “unusual” because they are “a thoroughlymodern invention.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693–694. By equating “unusual” with “in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,” the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it isinconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

Finally, the court used “a contemporary lens” and found“nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] arereadily adaptable to use in the military.” 470 Mass., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 694. But Heller rejected the proposi­tion “that only those weapons useful in warfare are pro­tected.” 554 U. S., at 624–625.

For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachu­setts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-23   18:34:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#23. To: tpaine, Vicomte13 (#22)

The Volokh article went on to note:

It was also a decision handed down without oral argument and without full briefing on the merits. (The parties filed a petition for certiorari, a brief in opposition, and a reply brief, but those formally dealt just with the question whether the court should hear the case.) The court thus seemed to view this as a very easy case.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-23   18:56:47 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#24. To: nolu chan (#23)

Nolu, it's that prima facie thing. From my (very quick. glancing, not-all-that-interested) skim of the facts, it looks as though the state court said, in essence, 'a stun gun isn't a flintlock, so there's no 2nd Amendment issue' and just moved on, and all 8 Supremes looked at that and said 'Whoa! Not so fast! You cannot just disregard the 2nd Amendment with a handwave. You have to seriously consider it.'

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   19:44:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#25. To: tpaine (#21)

The 2nd doesn't guarantee anyone having a nuke in the basement, as I've said before, and as you're unable to understand,

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. You've acknowledged that there is a line drawing exercise to be done, that the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not mean unlimited right to anything that is called an arm.

Nuclear weapons are arms, and you've acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anybody's right to own one.

So, we're back in the land of sanity. As with any right, it's a line-drawing exercise. The freedom of speech, which "shall not be infringed", can, in fact, be infringed - and always has been - when it comes to telling secrets to the enemy, sedition, fraud and slander.

And the Second Amendment's protections do not apply to private ownership of nukes, chemical weapons and bioweps. Those things are not included in "the right to keep and bear arms".

Flintlocks and swords clearly are. The line-drawing exercise comes in the matter of semi- automatic and automatic guns, and in the question of registration of guns.

And there, when the line is drawn to say no machine guns, and no semi-auto weapons with more than magazines of a certain size, I am inclined to say that once the limit of what is within the right - that there should be no registration, no sales permitting, no license to carry, and no restrictions on carrying, except in certain obvious places like airplanes.

Nor do I think that the simple fact of a crime conviction should cause a man to lose his right to vote or to bear arms.

That's what "shall not be infringed" means to me. I don't believe that the states have the right to erect different laws that effectively trammel the right to bear arms. It's a national right, and the states should not be able to vitiate the right by local rules. I am not a state's rights guy when it comes to individual rights = I think the Constitutional right crushes state law to the contrary.

But I'm not the President and not a Senator or Congressman, or Supreme, so my view accounts for the same as yours or anybody else's.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-23   19:53:13 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#26. To: Vicomte13 (#25)

A Personal nuclear weapon in the basement has never been at issue, -- as obviously, reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve that problem.

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

In a way, they're as fanatical as Muslims.

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. You've acknowledged that there is a line drawing exercise to be done, that the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not mean unlimited right to anything that is called an arm. -- Nuclear weapons are arms, and you've acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anybody's right to own one.

No, I've acknowledged that reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve the problem of possessing nuclear materials and/or other such weapons.

It's nice to see you backing off from your more fanatical opinions. Keep up the good work.

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-23   21:40:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#27. To: tpaine, down the slippery slope (#26)

No, I've acknowledged that reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve the problem of possessing nuclear materials and/or other such weapons.

You're sliding down the slippery slope of arms bans. Pretty soon you'll have nothing but a set of Magic Mormon underwear for protection.

Good luck, you're going to need it.


I'm sticking with my God given and constitutionally protecetd rights, thank you.


The D&R terrorists hate us because we're free, to vote second party
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul

Hondo68  posted on  2016-03-23   22:48:03 ET  (1 image) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#28. To: tpaine (#0)

Link?

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-23   22:50:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#29. To: redleghunter (#28)

Link?

See my #23.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-03-23   23:10:23 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#30. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

Tpaine and Hondo, two 2nd Amendment standard bearers who really believe that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a personal nuclear weapon in their basement.

Now you're just being a killjoy.

Tooconservative  posted on  2016-03-24   1:24:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#31. To: Vicomte13 (#15)

Tpaine and Hondo, two 2nd Amendment standard bearers who really believe that the 2nd Amendment protects their right to have a personal nuclear weapon in their basement.

Well having a nuke in your home is not practical nor safe.

I know a little about storage of nuclear weapons as I'm sure you do.

The proper shielding material is expensive and bulky.

If you don't have the proper materials you just may be doing your own family planning a la Simpson's.

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-24   1:28:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#32. To: redleghunter (#31)

I know.

The issue here is an important philosophic one: the Second Amendment is written in absolute terms, and comes from a time when those absolute terms could be taken absolutely.

But weaponry has developed to the point that we cannot continue to respect the original intent of the Constitution. We cannot continue to leave the right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, because "arms" today includes nukes, mustard gas, nerve gas and other weapons of mass destruction.

A hundred people a year cook off in murder suicides. A handful of murder-suicides brought down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. With nukes, the same number of murder suicides that day would have taken out 19 American cities.

Adam Lanza walked into a school and shot a bunch of kids. If people had nukes, it would have been the end of a city..

The problem with the Second Amendment today, the REASON that it is under pressure and being abridged, is not because of street crime - that's actually an argument FOR it. The problem is the instability of human beings and their propensity to cook off and kill a lot of people.

The gun rights advocates waves their hands and intone platitudes such as "Those who would sell their liberty for security deserve neither." That's a nice saying, but the reality is why Trump will be elected. Before Brussels, there were a whole bunch of people screaming about Trump. But with Brussels, everybody was reminded about terrorism in a brutal way, and there is only one candidate who actually MENTIONED Brtussels, specifically, and who speaks of stopping Muslim immigration and aggressively fighting the threat, including using torture. It's very easy to live philosophically - until the bombs start going off again. Philosophy triumphs easily over evils past and evils future, but evils present conquer philosophy. Muslim terrorism will have made Trump the next President, because in the end people will not just sit idly by and die.

And that is the problem with the Second Amendment: as written, it means that no weapon can be regulated. That was fine for 1789. It won't work today. The right must be abridged, but since gun nuts like Hondo - who thinks we have a personal right to nukes - won't let the Constitution be amended we are faced with the practical reality that our Constitution says something we cannot do if we don't want mass casualties every few days. People are too unstable to be permitted to have WMD, or mass effect weapons.

We came to this realization in the era of the machine gun, and we placed restrictions on firearms then. Nobody ever considered that people had the right to nukes or bioweps - that's insane.

Of course, once we infringed people's right to keep and bear automatic weapons, we were in fact breaking the Constitution. We were infringing people's right to keep and bear arms.

We have to. As with slavery in the 1860s, the Constitution as written with regards to weapons is not workable. It becomes a suicide pact. We HAVE TO violate its words, because if we don't, we will have mass casualties all the time. We already hAVE mass casualties all the time, many every year, with just SEMI-automatic weapons.

Reality is that we have to regulate arms possession and we do. Human beings are unstable and they commit murder-suicides, often. That will not change. So you have to limit the damage such people can do. One way you do that is by halting Muslim immigration. A second way is by restricting the power of weapons individuals can have. A third way is by refusing to let people who are already known to be unstable possess weapons. And those second two ways are both in direct violation of the clear language of the 2nd Amendment.

So, then you end up with the very problem I've been addressing: Constitutional purism versus common sense necessity. I use the personal nuke example because denying people the right to possess those ALSO violates the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment DOES pretty plainly protect the right to keep and bear nukes. And the Supreme Court was correct in the Dred Scott decision: slaves were indeed property, under the Constitution, and the states could not interfere with the property rights of men.

The problem is that the Constitution as written could not be respected regarding slavery, and it could not be amended. So it had to be violated. And the same is true when it comes to guns. Individuals cannot possess WMD. Period. The existential threat of that overrides the law. The Constitution says they can, and the gun nuts, like the slave lobby back then, is far to strong to ever amend the Constitution through the legal process.

So we are faced with the ugly truth that our Constitution, respected as written, cannot work. It becomes a suicide pact. We MUST violate it to survive. And we have. In 1860, the secessionists were right, constitutionally speaking. The Constitution does not say that states can't secede, and the Southern states were threatened by Lincoln and the North's politics regarding slavery. They seceded to protect it.

The Constitution vaguely empowers the President to fight rebellion, but it certainly didn't empower him to suspend habeas corpus, or to emancipate slaves. And yet he had to do those things or the country would have come apart permanently, and the slaves would never have been freed. So Lincoln violated the Constitution in order to save the country.

And likewise today, in the age of WMD. We have to violate the Constitution to enforce unconstitutional laws that prevent individuals from acquiring WMDs. There can be no question that those laws DO violate the direct language of the 2nd Amendment, because they do. But we cannot allow people to have their full 2nd Amendment rights anymore, because weapons are too powerful and we'll lose cities to suicides. We know that instinctively, so we've been violating the Constitution for a long time.

We have no choice in this.

My suggestion is simple. People who want to continue to exercise the right to have guns have to take the lead on amending the Constitution to allow for the reasonable regulation of weapons. Lines should be drawn legally, or else the whole Constitution falls into ruin, as it is.

We have to break the 2nd Amendment, and if we can break the 2md routinely, why not the 1st, or the 4th, or the rules of how the branches operate? There is no life-or-death reason to violate the OTHER provisions of the Constution, but we HAVE TO violate the 2nd, as written.

So we need to rewrite the 2nd. Amend it to make it clear that people can have guns, and set the parameters under which they can. Gun advocates need to take the lead, because if they don't, then people who think that nobody should have any guns will certainly press forward and legislate that. And since we're already violating the 2nd - because we have to in regards to WMD and machine guns - what's one more violation.

It's the gun advocates who need to be proactive and reasonable, and craft a reasonable constitutional provision for the 21st Century. But guys like Hondo refuse to get that. They insist on the full unlimited right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment: he claims his right to have a nuke. He stands pat on the language as written. By standing there, he may very well lose his right to have a gun at all.

The 2nd Amendment is unworkable. We cannot respect it as written, because we cannot permit people to have WMD and modern mass-area-effect weapons. The line has to be drawn and it is drawn.

Flip back to the Civil War example. The Southerners had to come up with a way to phase out slavery. They had to come up with it fast, and they had to lead the process and implement it. Instead, they stood fast on their constitutional rights, seceded to protect their slave culture, wrote slavery into their founding documents, fought to the death over it, were utterly destroyed and died, and preserved nothing. And were under federal occupation for a decade.

That's how things play out when people try to stand on rights that are unreasonable. They never keep the rights. They lose everything instead.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-24   7:22:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)

But weaponry has developed to the point that we cannot continue to respect the original intent of the Constitution. We cannot continue to leave the right to keep and bear arms uninfringed, because "arms" today includes nukes, mustard gas, nerve gas and other weapons of mass destruction.

Chemical weapons would be a treaty issue. The US unilaterally decommissioned all its chemical weapons stocks under Reagan-Bush 1 timeframe. So by US treaty adherence not even the military can have such weapons now. Only exception is the USANCA program which allows weaponized agents for research on how to protect our troops.

Nuclear Weapons? I know kind of silly, but if a private citizen or group of citizens wanted nukes, they would be in violation of several Non-Proliferation Nuclear treaties the US signed with allies and adversaries.

Now to finish your comments...:)

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-24   10:53:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#34. To: redleghunter (#33)

Chemical weapons would be a treaty issue. The US unilaterally decommissioned all its chemical weapons stocks under Reagan-Bush 1 timeframe. So by US treaty adherence not even the military can have such weapons now. Only exception is the USANCA program which allows weaponized agents for research on how to protect our troops.

Nuclear Weapons? I know kind of silly, but if a private citizen or group of citizens wanted nukes, they would be in violation of several Non-Proliferation Nuclear treaties the US signed with allies and adversaries.

Do treaties trump constitutional amendments?

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-24   11:15:14 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#35. To: Vicomte13 (#32) (Edited)

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

In a way, they're as fanatical as Muslims.

Ok. Now we're getting somewhere. You've acknowledged that there is a line drawing exercise to be done, that the "right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" does not mean unlimited right to anything that is called an arm. -- Nuclear weapons are arms, and you've acknowledged that the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee anybody's right to own one.

No, I've acknowledged that reasonable constitutionally based regulations can be written to solve the problem of possessing nuclear materials and/or other such weapons.

It's nice to see you backing off from your more fanatical opinions. Keep up the good work.

My suggestion is simple. People who want to continue to exercise the right to have guns have to take the lead on amending the Constitution to allow for the reasonable regulation of weapons.

Our constitution doesn't need amending, -- it needs govt officials to honor their oaths, to protect/defend, - and to write/enforce ONLY reasonable, constitutionally based regulations.

We must vote out the political fanatics who insist that they have the power to prohibit damn near anything, or any behavior..

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-24   11:16:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#36. To: tpaine (#35)

The real problem with bearing arms has always been the insane opponents of the 2nd. -- They feel they have an inate power to prohibit their peers from enjoying life, liberty, and property.

No it isn't.

The real problem with bearing arms is that crazy people commit mass murders with semi-automatic weapons on a semi-regular basis.

They do not do this because of angst about gun rights. They do it because they are crazy, and they can easily access multiple-shot, easy-to-use guns.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-24   11:39:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#37. To: Vicomte13 (#36)

It's nice to see you backing off from your more fanatical opinions. Keep up the good work.

My suggestion is simple. People who want to continue to exercise the right to have guns have to take the lead on amending the Constitution to allow for the reasonable regulation of weapons.

Our constitution doesn't need amending, -- it needs govt officials to honor their oaths, to protect/defend, - and to write/enforce ONLY reasonable, constitutionally based regulations.

We must vote out the political fanatics who insist that they have the power to prohibit damn near anything, or any behavior..

The real problem with bearing arms is that crazy people commit mass murders with semi-automatic weapons on a semi-regular basis. They do not do this because of angst about gun rights. They do it because they are crazy, and they can easily access multiple-shot, easy-to-use guns.

I knew your temporary sanity couldn't last., and sure enough, you're back to being a fanatic..

The historical fact is that crazy people have been committing mass murder with ALL sorts of weapons since time began.

-- Easy to use guns have become a major factor in preventing such attacks in Israel, -- for instance. -- Admit it..

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-24   12:00:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#38. To: Vicomte13 (#34)

Good question. They are international agreements ratified by our Senate.

They are not meant for our civil law and our citizens. If our citizens obtain WMD then do they become an entity under a treaty? Good question I don't have an answer other than it is silly to even consider this.

For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)

redleghunter  posted on  2016-03-24   12:22:49 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#39. To: redleghunter (#38)

Good question. They are international agreements ratified by our Senate.

They are not meant for our civil law and our citizens. If our citizens obtain WMD then do they become an entity under a treaty? Good question I don't have an answer other than it is silly to even consider this.

It's silly - and that's why it served a purpose.

The 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." That's what it says. Nuclear weapons are arms, and the Constitution says in black and white that the right of the people to keep them and bear them shall not be infringed.

It's obviously ridiculous, the thought that individuals can have nukes. And so we have, and have always had, without a moment's thought, laws that prohibit the people from keeping and bearing them. It's a no-brainer. It's also unconstitutional.

The Constitution, as written, in black and white - read the way that Christians read the Bible - prohibits the government from passing and enforcing any law or regulation that infringes upon your right to keep and bear a nuclear weapon.

Now, here the political world bifurcates into "Catholics" and "Sola Scripturalists". Catholics, without a moment's thought, see the dangers in everything nuclear and slap all sorts of laws on and around it. They don't theorize much about it. OBVIOUSLY these things are a gigantic risk. So OBVIOUSLY we have to regulate it and prohibit it, or people will get killed, and that's bad. Because losing cities to nuts is about as bad a thing as can be imagined, we don't let anybody have nukes. The same thing is true of machine guns, based on bitter experience during Prohibition. The "Catholics" would blink in astonishment at the question of where they would get their authority to prohibit people from owning nukes or machine guns. From the fact that people were elected, from the lawmaking power of officials, from common sense. When presented with the text of the Second Amendment, the "Catholics" would say that that was then, but the world has evolved and law has to evolve to reality. The Founders never considered anything like a machine gun, let alone a nuclear weapon.

The Sola Scripturalists come from a very different place. Government only has the power granted to it by the Constitution, they say. If the power was not granted to government, then government has no such power. The Founders were great men, they say, American apostles of liberty. They gave us the Constitution, and the Constitution means what they meant when they wrote it. They gave us the ability to amend the Constitution, and that is what we are limited to if we want to change things in it, they say. Congressmen, the President and judges at all levels all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, "necessity" is not an argument for breaking the terms of the Constitution, for the Constitution must be protected inviolate by those who have sworn a sacred oath to uphold it.

Now, the Second Amendment says in black and white: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It isn't vague. There is no qualifying language. "Shall not be infringed" is right there, and it means what it says. If you say I cannot have a nuke, or a machine gun you are infringing on my right to have that arm, and the Constitution says that government has no power whatever to do that.

Now, we've always had laws against private nukes, and we've had laws against machine guns for a long time. But with all of the mass killings, there are now laws against semiautomatic weapons also, and laws against handguns, laws that press registration and limitation. And people who want to protect gun rights reply that all of these laws are violations of the 2nd Amendment. And maybe they all are - the Sola Scripturalist constitutionalists like Hondo definitely think so.

I start with nukes because it's not silly at all. They're arms. We HAVE TO limit them, but the Constitution says we can't. So, how do we treat our violation of the Second Amendment? The majority does not exist to amend the document. We have to violate it. Do we just violate it, acknowledge we're violating it, and say that some arms are just so powerful that the Founder's rule cannot apply today? This is the "Living Constitution" or "Catholic" approach. Of course, then the question of whether people should have guns at all is on the table, because maybe things have evolved to the point that private firearms ownership needs to change. A "Living Constitution" can be bent any which way. Hard cases make bad law.

But we can't take the purist position, because then Hondo can have his nuke.

I've given my own suggestion as to where, and how, to draw the line. And I've gotten a lot of guff about it.

We've seen Hondo's view: the line is no limits.

The nuke question and the answer that it's silly, of course we have to limit nukes, means that you're not a "Sola Scripturalist" constitutionalist. The question is: where should the line be drawn, and one what principle. And as you draw up your position, remember: you have to account for the nuclear question, because it is part of the question of arms. So really not silly at all, when you get right down to it.

Vicomte13  posted on  2016-03-24   13:39:21 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#40. To: Vicomte13 (#39)

The real problem with bearing arms is that crazy people commit mass murders with semi-automatic weapons on a semi-regular basis. They do not do this because of angst about gun rights. They do it because they are crazy, and they can easily access multiple-shot, easy-to-use guns.

I knew your temporary sanity couldn't last., and sure enough, you're back to being a fanatic..

The historical fact is that crazy people have been committing mass murder with ALL sorts of weapons since time began.

-- Easy to use guns have become a major factor in preventing such attacks in Israel, -- for instance. -- Admit it..

Because losing cities to nuts is about as bad a thing as can be imagined, we don't let anybody have nukes. The same thing is true of machine guns, based on bitter experience during Prohibition.

Bullshit. Sure, machine guns were used by criminals (mostly against other criminals) during our national insanity called prohibition, - but the 'NFA' was passed by a socialistic congress at the urging of a socialistic president primarily because they were afraid of the depression era masses, imo...

(The 'socialists') would blink in astonishment at the question of where they would get their authority to prohibit people from owning nukes or machine guns. From the fact that people were elected, from the lawmaking power of officials, from common sense.

In other words they ignored our Constitution and made up the power..

When presented with the text of the Second Amendment, the ("socialists") would say that that was then, but the world has evolved and law has to evolve to reality. The Founders never considered anything like a machine gun, --

Again, bullshit. The founders were well aware of volley guns and grapeshot cannon.

The truth is, that vicomte will write most any damn thing to advance his anti- constitutional agenda

tpaine  posted on  2016-03-24   14:27:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  



      .
      .
      .

Comments (41 - 77) not displayed.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com