Another Case For The SCOTUS?

Another Case For The SCOTUS?

This is a discussion on Another Case For The SCOTUS? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; An arrest made in Brooklyn for possesion of guns in the home. Defense being used, the 2A. Another case for SCOTUS? http://www.gothamgazette.com/article...071116/13/2348...

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816

    Another Case For The SCOTUS?

    An arrest made in Brooklyn for possesion of guns in the home. Defense being used, the 2A. Another case for SCOTUS?

    http://www.gothamgazette.com/article...071116/13/2348


  2. #2
    Distinguished Member Array randytulsa2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    1,548
    Yes, hopefully.

    At some point they will HAVE to face up to the issue. And it's better for us (and the country) if they do it before the Court's composition changes very much, so the sooner the better.
    "...bad decisions that turn out well often make heroes."


    Gary D. Mitchell, A Sniper's Journey: The Truth About the Man and the Rifle, P. 103, NAL Caliber books, 2006, 1st Ed.

  3. #3
    Distinguished Member Array P7fanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Texan in NWFlorida
    Posts
    1,588

    Cool

    Gun Laws Confront Legal Challenges
    by Emily Jane Goodman
    November 2007

    The closest any federal court in New York has come to this issue was in non-criminal litigation. In that instance, the court decided, "The right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.

    When People v Handsome came to New York City Criminal Court in Brooklyn, Judge Michael Gerstein refused to dismiss the charges. Instead, he totally dismissed the opinion of the federal court, a far loftier court than his.

    In his scholarly decision, Gerstein adopts the view that the Second Amendment was enacted to protect of state militias from the federal government and not to declare the individual’s right to possess arms. With the disappearance of state militias, courts have generally held, the purpose of the Second Amendment is moot. Parker is "founded on a revisionist view of the Constitutional Convention, which view is far from generally accepted," said Gerstein.

    No one, the judge reasoned, intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."

    **********************************
    What a pompous and ignorant view to think that the Parker decision is "founded on a revisionist view of the Constitutional Convention".

    How can a supposedly 'intelligent' man that makes , according to New York State Supreme Court Justice Emily Goodman, 'scholarly decisions' think or say that -No one intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."

    Has he never read the views, letters, quotes or opinions of our founding fathers? Or does he just dismiss or forget the ones he doesn't agree with.
    Does he consider the 1st Amend 'Freedom of speech' and the 4th Amend 'right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated' to be individual rights but that the 2nd Amend is not an individual right?

    -It is not the Bill of Privileges. It is not the Bill of Permits. It is the Bill of Rights.

    In response to judge gerstein's reasoning that -No one intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use", I leave you a few quotes:

    * George Mason: ". . . to disarm the people; that . . . was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."

    * Richard Henry Lee: ". . . to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

    *•James Madison, drafter of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist No. 46 scorned European despotisms as "afraid to trust the people with arms," and assured his countrymen that they need not fear their government because of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."

    *Congressman Fisher Ames noted of Madison's proposals the "the rights of conscience, of bearing arms, . . . are declared to be inherent in the people."

    *Samuel Adams asserted in the Massachusetts convention that "the said Constitution be never construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

    *James Monroe included "the right to keep and bear arms" in his list of basic human rights.

    *Patrick Henry said, "The great object is, that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun."

    *Thomas Jefferson: "One loves to possess arms"; and advising his 15-year-old nephew, he wrote, "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

    *Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

    *George Mason said, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public servants."

    *"Americans have a right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison, The Federalist Papers. No.46 at 243-244.

    *GEORGE WASHINGTON, First President and Father of the Country: “A free people ought to be armed. " George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790, in the Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

    *"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in fill possession of them." - Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliott, Debates at page 646.

    *"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, pages 184-188.

    *"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense..." - John Adams, A defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471(1788)

    *"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." - Richard Henry Lee writing in "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic"

    *The right of the people to bear arms is not “...in any manner dependent upon that instrument [The Constitution] for it's existence." - United States vs. Cruikshank, US Supreme Court, 1876.

    *"That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing [as liberty], on which all the good and evil of life depends; is clearly my opinion; yet Arms...should be the last resort." - George Washington, (Letter to George Mason, 1789).

    *"... The right of the people to keep and bear.... may be regarded as the true palladium of liberty. The right to self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible." - Judge St. George Tucker, Editor, Blackstone's Commentaries, P.300 (1803)

    *"...arms...discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property.... Horrid mischief would ensue were [the law-abiding] deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

    "Government big enough to supply everything that you need is big enough to take everything that you have." - Thomas Jefferson

    *"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Ceaser Beccria.

    *(Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like. -- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School.

    *The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; ... when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." - Henry St. George Tucker, in Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

    * "I learn with great concern that [one] portion of our frontier so interesting, so important, and so exposed, should be so entirely unprovided with common fire-arms. I did not suppose any part of the United States so destitute of what is considered as among the first necessaries of a farm-house." --Thomas Jefferson to Jacob J. Brown, 1808. ME 11:432

    *"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

    *"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

    *Good Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target. -Tim King 2007


    "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson

    "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder." -Michael Savage

    GOOD Gun Control is being able to hit your target! -Myself

  4. #4
    BAC
    BAC is offline
    VIP Member Array BAC's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Posts
    2,292
    Big case. Not a new concept, though, and was already argued in Presser v. Illinois. Let's hope either the same or similar outcome occurs.

    I'll keep a watch on this one.

    Edit: As a side note, I'd like to challenge everyone who decides to post that multitude of quotes to find the documents and verify the authenticity of those quotes. I think in many cases you'll be very surprised. I recently finished a paper for a government course I'm taking where I attempted to use many of those quotes and in my own research found a large number of them to be wrong or made up.


    -B

  5. #5
    Member Array S3ymour's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    458
    Well said.
    "All war is deception" --Sun Tzu
    MOΛΩN ΛABÉ

  6. #6
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,078
    To [Judge] Gerstein, this means state militias (or in modern times the National Guard) have the right to possess weapons. No one, the judge reasoned, intended for every individual to "own firearms for their private, civilian use."
    Wow....I guess this judge didn't show up for class the day they taught law at law school--Gov'ts do not have rights--people do. Plus, the judge is a moron.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  7. #7
    Senior Member Array Skygod's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    645
    I'd be comfortable with New York and Vermont succeding from the United States of America. Vermont seems to be talking about enough I'd be happy to allow them to become their own independent nation along with New York.

    Here's the caveats to thier succession. First, They rely solely on on thier own psuedo tax system. Road and waterworks and energy infrastructure can be paid for through higher taxation on their citizens and corporations that head quarted within the newly formed nation.

    Second, and most importantly, they can have all the socialist laws they want, it's their little nation and they'd be entitled to it. However, they would be required to maintain their own military and military infrastructure, retirement systems and social security savings accounts, not the U.S. federal funds available to states within America.

    Third. In the event of natural distasters they are of course left to themselves as well. They'll have to create their own form of FEMA and their own National Coast Guard for such emergency's. Yeah, don't call Washington D.C. expecting any help. After all they are their own nation and they want and desired to succede from us.

    Fourth. Crossing the borders to the actual United States would require a passport stamp each and every time they decide to drive across their new national line into the United States. They would also be subject to a customs check on each occassion as well. After all we don't know it'f their terrorists or not and we desire to maintain a Homeland Security Deparmtent force on all of our borders. Hehehe.

    Fifth. If a New Yorker or Vermonter works in another state, which is now not part of their nation, they would be required to pay state income tax. For instance, you reside in the nation of Vermont but you work in New Hampshire. Yep, pay a tax for the privilege of earning your wages in the United States.

    Finally, I believe we could do away with our civil liberties being violated. We could also persuade California to consider succeding from the U.S. as well. Of course all the above rules would apply.
    Perhaps your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Array ronwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    816
    Quote Originally Posted by Skygod View Post
    I'd be comfortable with New York and Vermont succeding from the United States of America. Vermont seems to be talking about enough I'd be happy to allow them to become their own independent nation along with New York.

    Here's the caveats to thier succession. First, They rely solely on on thier own psuedo tax system. Road and waterworks and energy infrastructure can be paid for through higher taxation on their citizens and corporations that head quarted within the newly formed nation.

    Second, and most importantly, they can have all the socialist laws they want, it's their little nation and they'd be entitled to it. However, they would be required to maintain their own military and military infrastructure, retirement systems and social security savings accounts, not the U.S. federal funds available to states within America.

    Third. In the event of natural distasters they are of course left to themselves as well. They'll have to create their own form of FEMA and their own National Coast Guard for such emergency's. Yeah, don't call Washington D.C. expecting any help. After all they are their own nation and they want and desired to succede from us.

    Fourth. Crossing the borders to the actual United States would require a passport stamp each and every time they decide to drive across their new national line into the United States. They would also be subject to a customs check on each occassion as well. After all we don't know it'f their terrorists or not and we desire to maintain a Homeland Security Deparmtent force on all of our borders. Hehehe.

    Fifth. If a New Yorker or Vermonter works in another state, which is now not part of their nation, they would be required to pay state income tax. For instance, you reside in the nation of Vermont but you work in New Hampshire. Yep, pay a tax for the privilege of earning your wages in the United States.

    Finally, I believe we could do away with our civil liberties being violated. We could also persuade California to consider succeding from the U.S. as well. Of course all the above rules would apply.
    I don't understand the Vermont thing. They, along with Alaska, are the only ones that don't require permits for concealed carry.

  9. #9
    Member Array teagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    41
    Going beyond the legal history, the New York judge used the decision to present statistics about the "nationwide proliferation of deaths and injuries caused by privately owned guns." Since the 2007 decision in Parker, Washington, D.C. has experienced 750 armed robberies, 520 armed assaults and 111 homicides, according to sources cited by Gerstein in his decision.
    Maybe I missed something, but isn't the DC ban still in effect pending a decision on the appeal? If so, the statistics cited are an example of gun bans NOT WORKING.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 2A SCOTUS case briefs?
    By Tom357 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: February 18th, 2010, 06:45 AM
  2. LE Responsibility; SCOTUS case
    By P7fanatic in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: December 13th, 2007, 06:19 PM
  3. SCOTUS--Court Rules in Gun Case
    By falcon1 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 10th, 2007, 10:33 PM
  4. Woohoo!!! SCOTUS Take the Case.
    By CT-Mike in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 20th, 2007, 04:12 PM
  5. SCOTUS Declines DC Case
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: November 15th, 2007, 06:41 AM

» Log in

User Name:

Password:

Not a member yet?
Register Now!

» DefensiveCarry Sponsors