PDA

View Full Version : Need another SCOTUS 2nd amendment case.


nicki
01-17-2011, 2:50 PM
Based on the current "Heller and McDonald cases", the meaning of the second amendment is "narrowly tailored" to "self defense" and "common arms".

Now, I believe that both Scalia and Alioto ruled as broad as they could with the cases brought to them, so in the words of "Alan Gura", he predicts lots of work for Lawyers for the next 5 years.

If we operate under a "Natural Law" principle, then we all have the "Natural Right" of "Self Defense" which the 2nd amendment recognizes.

Now what we do is we expand on that and where we go with that is that since we all have the right of self defense, then logically we would have the right to pool and/or delegate our right of self defense into a "Common Defense".

One could even argue that the underlining authority that legitimizes all Law Enforcement is effectively based on our "Collective Delegation of our right of self defense".

Just because we delegate our rights doesn't mean we surrender our rights.

One thing we have done is we have collectively delegated authority to our government to serve us, hence, our government operates under the priniciple of "consent of the governed".

The Constitutional principle of "consent of the governed" means nothing if that "Consent can't be revoked".

The first amendment provides us peaceable means to redress grievances with our government, the second amendment provides us violent means, it provides the teeth to ensure our system of "ordered Liberty" survives.

Once the people loose the ability to enforce their rights, they won't have any.

In order to ensure our rights, we must have arms equal to or superior to what the arms "common to government troops/police/agencies".

The truth is up to the 1930's, the American people were equally or superiorly armed to the government.

In the West post civil war Calvary troops had single shot rifles where many Westerners had multi shot lever action rifles. Some had up to 16 rounds.

It was until the late 1970's, early 1980's that police departments started to switch over from revolvers to semi auto pistols.

In short, in order to protect our system of "Self Government" and "Ordered Liberty", the people must retain the means to enforce their self defense/common defense(Duty) rights against an government that would be in rebellion against the constitution.

Consequently, any laws that "infringe" on the People's ability to defend themselves against a "rogue government" should be found unconstitutional.

The need for the people to be able to protect themselves from a "rogue government" that could destroy our system of "ordered liberty" significantly outweighs any benefit from so called magazine capacity limits or other so called "common sense" gun laws.

Indeed, if we were to use "common sense", we would repeal most gun laws.

Nicki

NightOwl
01-17-2011, 2:55 PM
Paragraphs make it easier to read. I agree with what you're getting at though.

Don29palms
01-17-2011, 2:59 PM
In my opinion gunlaws are an infringement. Shall not be infringed is what the 2A says. I've never read anywhere in the 2A where it says restrictions are allowed. Am I missing something?

EricSF
01-17-2011, 3:27 PM
I like the way you're thinking! Our arms should be equal or superior to govt arms

krucam
01-17-2011, 3:42 PM
Nicki needs to contact and convince SAF or CGF on his musings. I say musings because realistically, the opposite has been the truth since the 30's.

I'm optimistic the pendulum is swinging in our direction. We'll have undone in 2011 or 2012 almost everything the Brady's , VPC, LCAV and MOUSE have come up with....and, we'll have some lasting Judicial precedent as well, contrasting that of the more fluid Legislative branch.

Heller, McDonald, Skoein, Chester...forget Peruta for now, it is coming our way.

I for one do not want a MG and have no desire to let Felons bring MF's onto airplanes. The reality won't meet the anti's predictions and will exceed mine. Somewhere in the middle. It's gonna be good.

Allow (not that I want it) what .gov has and all will be good. And I'll bet that Violent Crime rates don't increase as a result.

stix213
01-17-2011, 3:46 PM
I agree. We should be allowed guns with the same or better capabilities as the military. FA rifles at minimum. FA is over rated anyway... only your first round will hit what you are aiming at.

Though I'm fine having nukes, bio weapons, and stinger missiles outlawed - whether I get flamed or not.

Dreaded Claymore
01-17-2011, 4:10 PM
Okay, you need to let your " key cool off for a few minutes after making that post, or it'll melt. :D

Uriah02
01-17-2011, 4:38 PM
While your proposal is more constitutionally sound, I would never expect society and thus our government to get to a point where they would want/allow the masses to be equally armed. First we need to get past the idea that the government is here to protect each person and not the collective, when we get there people will start taking their own safety seriously and it would only be a matter of time.

kcbrown
01-17-2011, 5:23 PM
Consequently, any laws that "infringe" on the People's ability to defend themselves against a "rogue government" should be found unconstitutional.

The need for the people to be able to protect themselves from a "rogue government" that could destroy our system of "ordered liberty" significantly outweighs any benefit from so called magazine capacity limits or other so called "common sense" gun laws.

Indeed, if we were to use "common sense", we would repeal most gun laws.


I fully agree. However, this will never happen. The court system is part of the government and as such, is more interested in maintaining its own power than it is in adhering to the meaning and intent of the Constitution. Since it's the court system which decides what rights the government recognizes and the degree to which they are recognized, it follows that the ability of the people to meaningfully protect themselves from a government gone rogue will never be allowed by the court system, for when the government goes rogue, so does the court system.

Quser.619
01-17-2011, 6:23 PM
Lord knows I could use a tank...:D

Paul S
01-17-2011, 6:53 PM
While I agree in principle with your view...I would also caution...be careful what you wish for. Remember there is a definite liberal wing in the Supreme Court which does not share our views. And remember...the pro 2a ruling was not unanimous.

kln5
01-17-2011, 10:35 PM
I aggree 100%. this is the true meaning of the 2nd amendment.

I want my own apache helicopter

Anchors
01-17-2011, 11:05 PM
I believe I have the right to automatic weapons.
Even if the current purchase system stays in place, at least allow guns made/registered after 1986.
That way the price isn't defacto prohibition.

Blackhawk556
01-18-2011, 12:27 AM
does gura have a current case that has the potential to go all the way? or do other lawyers have cases that can reach SCOTUS much faster than gura's case?

Kharn
01-18-2011, 3:03 AM
There are several cases with the potential to go to the top, check any case Gura has filed in the last 6 months.

yellowfin
01-18-2011, 4:50 AM
The cases in the works now will push at least one of them to the top via the circuit split thingy--the ones that aren't explicitly taken will be effectively bundled in with the one or two that are.

JeffM
01-18-2011, 5:25 AM
It's a long road to hoe. There's lots in the works, but first things first. Like Hoffmang said: you gotta buy a girl dinner before you ask if she likes anal sex.