PDA

View Full Version : I need some Heller case quotes...


Steve O
03-27-2009, 12:06 PM
I'm looking for some case quotes from the Heller case.
I know I can read the whole case but it looks overwhelming...

I'm looking for catch phrases and quotes to use against anti's that keep bringing up AW legislation and how we need it.

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 12:27 PM
[Paraphrsing for proper syntax] "The Second Amendment protects those weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens, for lawful purposes." Heller at pg 53.


You then have to preface the above with the following fact:

Modern, semi-automatic rifles (and the "AR15 type" in particular) also commonly misnamed as "Assault Weapons" are one, if not THE MOST COMMON long gun owned by ordinary law abiding U.S. citizens for LAWFUL purposes. Im sure somebody can supply us with the numbers, but I would venture a guess that there are TENS OF MILLIONS of autofeeding rifles in the U.S. and that they make up a large percentage of all the firearms sales yearly.



Others should they bring up the Militia issue:
"The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense." Heller at 52.

“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one
and the same.” Heller at 52 quoting State v. Kessler.


“[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Heller at 52 quoting U.S. v Miller.

Again, the Modern Semi-automatic rifle is the MOST appropriate weapon for the purpose of Militia service, commonly owned by ordinary citizens and therefore, without question in the wake of Heller, are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

GuyW
03-27-2009, 6:59 PM
?

I thought the OP was looking for the quotes from the decision that are in the vein of, "Jane - you ignorant slut..."

:)

sreiter
03-27-2009, 8:24 PM
the Chief Justice focused on the text of the Amendment and said “If it is limited to state militias, why would they say ‘the right of the people. In other words, why wouldn’t they say ’state militias have the right to keep arms.’”

Scalia shortly got involved, saying “why isn’t it perfectly plausible, indeed reasonable, to assume that since the framers knew that the way militias were destroyed by tyrants in the past…by taking away the people’s weapons…the two clauses go together beautifully: Since we need a militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Justice Kennedy was supporting was one keyed entirely to the home, and its defense against intruders — beginning with people in the Founding era who lived in the wilderness, and had to fend off, say, Indians. He referred to “the remote settler” seeking to “defend himself and his family against hostile Indian tribes and outlaws, wolves and bears and grizzlies and things like that?” And it also became clear that, in modern times, with high crime rates, individuals in their homes needed a dependable means of defense against urban intruders.

read this amicus brief http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/documents/07-290bsacSecondAmendmentFoundation.pdf

GuyW
03-27-2009, 9:03 PM
OOOPs - not AW focused...

"In Muscarello vs United States, 524 U.S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of "carries a firearm" in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that "[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ...indicate[s]: 'wear, bear, or carry... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ...of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.' "(Heller at page 10)....We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of "bear arms" (Heller at page 11).



.

RomanDad
03-27-2009, 9:21 PM
?

I thought the OP was looking for the quotes from the decision that are in the vein of, "Jane - you ignorant slut..."

:)


I can do that too....


"Giving “bear Arms” its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war—an absurdity that no
commentator has ever endorsed. See L. Levy, Origins of the Bill of Rights 135 (1999). Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.” Grotesque." Heller at 13.

Pvt. Cowboy
03-27-2009, 9:56 PM
Make sure to cover the best arguments against RKBA made by Walter Dellinger in the Heller oral arguments and note point by point how the majority of the Justices teed off on him like he was a first year C- law school student and turned Dellinger into a bumbling stuttering wreck.

http://www.downrange.tv/mp3s/dellinger.mp3

sreiter
03-28-2009, 8:40 AM
The term “bear Arms” in the Second Amendment’s operative clause does not imply that the Amendment has an
exclusively military purpose Petitioners and amici Professors of Linguistics and English maintain that the term “bear Arms”
implies that the Second Amendment refers only to the military use of weapons. If it were true, this would
come as a surprise to several members of this Court.

See Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 142-43 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). But it is false.

First, the very dictionaries quoted by amici to prove “an overwhelming military meaning” of the
word “arms” refute their claim. Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary, for example, says: “In law, arms are any
thing which a man takes in his hand in anger, to strike or assault another.”

Second, it was perfectly normal to use the term “bear arms” in civilian contexts. James Wilson – a
preeminent lawyer and an early member of this Court – used the term in a discussion of homicide in
“defense of one’s person or house.” Interpreting the 1790 Pennsylvania Constitution’s guarantee of the
right “to bear arms,” Wilson characterized this provision as a recognition of the natural law of self preservation
and as a descendant of the Saxons’ obligation to “keep arms for the preservation of the kingdom, and of their own persons.”

Third, the relevant constitutional term in the instant case is “keep . . . Arms.” Only through the wildest exaggeration of the military connotations of “bear arms” could one possibly conclude that “keep arms” has been transmuted through propinquity into
a military term.

Steve O
04-02-2009, 12:40 PM
thanks guys.

I'll try to use these as reference.