[CAS_Shooter]

What gets little attention in the 2A national debate is the dissenting opinion of the four justices that voted against Heller. I think any candidate that is running on a 2A platform, who does not provide at least basic details as to where 2A will go if the wrong judges are on the bench, is helping the anti-2A cause. Here are two simple talking points that were written by the supreme course justices that opposed the Heller case:

1. ....that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended
2. ....that the "militia" preamble demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only

It is NOT enough to have a candidate talk in generalities about what will happen to 2A if the wrong judges are put on the bench. It is essential that the candidate make clear that the four that are sitting there now have already made clear thier ruling on the subject and they need only one more to end 2A as we know it. Either examples above are alone powerful enough to change the fundamental rights as we know them today. Heller could be over by accepting any of the cases that have been sitting out there waiting and the known opinion of the four dissenters are not ambiguous.

Look at #1 above. This opinion would end the premise that 2A is an individual right. This alone will end 2A as we know it and will enable any legislation of any kind for any reason at all levels.

Candidates that are not making clear the current, specific opinions of the four dissenting justices is failing at educating the populace on the seriousness and the reality that already exists with the current makeup to change gun ownership in the US to look like Canada and Australia. All that is needed is one more justice who agrees with the other four that....

....the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended

2A as we know it will be dead and buried. No conservative legislature will be able to save 2A when the ruling states that it is not an individual right anymore. Candidates, and their advisers, need to get them talking in specifics about what the currently published positions are with the Heller dissenters and how quickly it could turn 2A upside down for decades at least.

I am convinced that many do not understand the opinion of those on the bench that oppose 2A as an individual right, and the speed with which that right could be ended. If this happens, the only hope I see would be a constitutional amendment that basically rewrites 2A into an unambiguous proclamation as an individual right. Getting 2/3 of congress to agree on the amendment would be a challenge, but I think it could happen. If it got past congress, I am convinced that the needed 3/4 of the states would vote in favor. This would be our only hope if the next justice is one that believes as the other four Heller dissenters do:

....that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended

Arguing against their position is meaningless; explaining why their opinion is not based in the founding fathers intent is fruitless; having a dialog about how their liberal ideology is anti constitution is a waste of time. Our opinion as to their opinion matters zilch.

What matters is that their opinions are the only ones that matter and people should be educated as to what those opinions are, specifically.

 

[19Kvet]

It is inherent in the 2A that the people's opinion matters.

Trevor

 

[CAS_Shooter]

It is inherent in the 2A that the people's opinion matters.

Trevor

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the peoples opinions manifest themselves at the ballot box. Beyond that, we can pretend that our opinions matter on internet forums, to ourselves, and to those in the circles we occasion. If Scalia's replacement holds the same opinion as the four Heller dissenters, our opinion of there opinion will be dust in the wind?

 

[bill35738]

Clint Eastwood for SCJ

 

[The Old Anglo]

Heller is considered "Settled Law" and Needs to be left as is!.

 

[CAS_Shooter]

Heller is considered "Settled Law" and Needs to be left as is!.

Unfortunately, there are many cases of "settled law" by one court being overturned by a later court. The Justice that replaces Scallia will be the arbiter of how settled, or not, Heller is.

 

[gnius]

The joke of course is that the Founders intentions cannot be clearer with regards to the 2A based on a mountain of their further writings. To pretend that one has to guess their intentions in a vacuum is at best ignorance, but likely intellectual dishonesty. To do so with the intent of judiciously altering the rights given by the Constitution is treason.

 

[Gaius]

It would be dry foolish to argue that Heller is "settled law" implying that it cannot be overruled. If the majority of SC judges want to throw out Heller, there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

 

[Havok]

Heller is considered "Settled Law" and Needs to be left as is!.

Only until someone decides it is no longer settled.


Also, our founders DID express clearly that 2A is an individual right. The SCOTUS judges just dont care, and want to interpret things in a way that fits their liberal agenda. I imagine at the time of writing the 9th amendment, the founders thought that would settle any sort of misinterpretation of any of our rights, and they all high fived each other and said "There's no way they will screw this up".

 

[19Kvet]

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution, the peoples opinions manifest themselves at the ballot box. Beyond that, we can pretend that our opinions matter on internet forums, to ourselves, and to those in the circles we occasion. If Scalia's replacement holds the same opinion as the four Heller dissenters, our opinion of there opinion will be dust in the wind?

As the saying goes, the people's power is expressed via the ballot box, the soap box, and the ammunition box.

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

The joke of course is that the Founders intentions cannot be clearer with regards to the 2A based on a mountain of their further writings. To pretend that one has to guess their intentions in a vacuum is at best ignorance, but likely intellectual dishonesty. To do so with the intent of judiciously altering the rights given by the Constitution is treason.

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights to The People. The Bill of Rights merely recognizes rights which are unalienable and which exist regardless of any document written by Man.

 

[LuketheDrifter]

Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights grant any rights to The People. The Bill of Rights merely recognizes rights which are unalienable and which exist regardless of any document written by Man.

Hear! Hear!

 

[marshallman]

Do you know offhand any of the writings that I could read regarding their intentions on the 2A? I'd love to use that to bolster my position when debating the antis.

The joke of course is that the Founders intentions cannot be clearer with regards to the 2A based on a mountain of their further writings. To pretend that one has to guess their intentions in a vacuum is at best ignorance, but likely intellectual dishonesty. To do so with the intent of judiciously altering the rights given by the Constitution is treason.

 

[GraySkies]

The joke of course is that the Founders intentions cannot be clearer with regards to the 2A based on a mountain of their further writings. To pretend that one has to guess their intentions in a vacuum is at best ignorance, but likely intellectual dishonesty. To do so with the intent of judiciously altering the rights given by the Constitution is treason.

Even Scalia didn't care what the founding fathers thought or what their intent was. He believed the language in the document had to stand alone, apart from intent or opinion of the writer. In his opinion, Heller is a correct interpretation of the actual words that make up the 2nd amendment.

A later justice (and four of the current sitting justices) could see that language differently. If you've ever read any history of the supreme court, swings and changes in philosophy happen all the time. I agree that if Clinton is elected she will appoint justices who will destroy the current understanding of the 2nd.

Unfortunately, I am of the opinion that this will have to get a lot worse before the American electorate will wake up and start to realize the freedom they are throwing away. If Hillary Clinton is elected, that "getting a lot worse" will start to happen at an accelerated pace.

It won't be done overnight, though. The SCOTUS always has a lot on their plate, and they are selective about what they choose to hear. It could take many years, at the federal level, to entirely dismantle the 2nd to the level we are talking about. That's why we need to get involved in STATE politics. If those anti 2nd amendment justices get in, STATE legislatures will start to pass infringing regulations, knowing that they will be upheld when challenged. The states will continue to be the battleground.

 

[farsidefan1]

Once again, like in the 60's we will have an "activist" court that thinks they are the legislative branch as well as the judicial. I see it as absolutely inevitable.

 

[farsidefan1]

Do you know offhand any of the writings that I could read regarding their intentions on the 2A? I'd love to use that to bolster my position when debating the antis.

I know of none better than this, "George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

It is actually recorded that his next line was, "except for a few politicians".

 

[SouthernBoyVA]

Do you know offhand any of the writings that I could read regarding their intentions on the 2A? I'd love to use that to bolster my position when debating the antis.

The Federalist Papers, various writings of the Founders, and quotes made by these men. That and the history of the time these documents were written. An excellent book on the subject is "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook.

And here's one that the anti's frequently either seem to forget or never learned. The spark which ignited the American Revolution was gun control. Specifically confiscation and seizing of arms.

 

[CAS_Shooter]

I know of none better than this, "George Mason: “I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

If you use this argument then you are also arguing that the right is connected with being a member of the militia and not an individual right, inherent to itself. This is a slipper slope position to take on 2A.

It is actually recorded that his next line was, "except for a few politicians"

Sort of. It goes like this:

I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.

Context is everything and in this debate Mason imagines scenarios where, in the future, the militia is not "the whole people". So if we play the game of arguing that the right is ours because we are part of the militia, then we have to accept that Mason envisioned a future time when the militia was not "the whole people" and if right to keep and bear is related to being part of the militia, then it is reasonably argued that when, in the future that Mason references, it is no longer the "whole people" then too would the right to keep and bear not be for the "whole people" either.

Going along with the suggestion that 2A is about the militia and that we all are covered because we are all in the militia, is a slipper slope......because even Mason imagined a time when the militia may not be "the whole people".

The right to keep and bear stands alone, with no need for reference to or connection with the militia. That being said, my feelings or interpretations won't matter when Scallia's replacement gets confirmed. We will all be sitting in the bleachers watching the show from too far away to matter.

 

[ICEMAN550]

The Federalist Papers, various writings of the Founders, and quotes made by these men. That and the history of the time these documents were written. An excellent book on the subject is "That Every Man Be Armed" by Stephen Halbrook.

And here's one that the anti's frequently either seem to forget or never learned. The spark which ignited the American Revolution was gun control. Specifically confiscation and seizing of arms.

In addition the fact that the Second Amendment is in the BOR is telling since they are all referring to the individual. Why would the 2ND be the only one that is not.The entire reason for the BOR is to list certain inalienable rights that are not granted by the Government and can not be taken away. They are limits to the Government not to the people.

 

[19Kvet]

The stated purpose of the BOR is: "The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"