PDA

View Full Version : Heller I: Did Ginsburg get b*tch slapped...


mshill
11-12-2013, 4:14 PM
I was reading through both the dissenting opinions and the majority opinion for Heller. Justice Stevens went to great length in defining "keep and bear arms" as tightly coupled with service in the "militia" (military) and thus a collective right. Obviously Justice Ginsburg joined in his dissent.

Then I came accross this in Justice Scalia majority opinion:

In Muscarello v. 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.’” Id., at 143 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black’s Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed. 1998)). We think that JUSTICE GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization.

Justice Scalia hammers Ginsburg with her own words. How in the world could she have joined in the dissenting opinion with Stevens? She could have easily just joined Justice Breyers dissent instead of both.

Why the blatant two faced argument?

baggss
11-12-2013, 5:12 PM
Pretty amusing actually. I wonder how often this sort of thing occurs with them?

VegasND
11-12-2013, 6:17 PM
I remember reading that when the decision was handed down and have wondered why so little has been said about it.

Mulay El Raisuli
11-13-2013, 8:28 AM
I remember reading that when the decision was handed down and have wondered why so little has been said about it.


Me, too. It was a pretty big beat-down.


The Raisuli

Epaphroditus
11-13-2013, 12:06 PM
I just wonder if those "in the service of the militia" types of interpreters realize that means we all need the latest and greatest military 'style' weapons - it's for the good of the militia.

How often we read of the lamentations of the founding fathers at the pathetic gear the militia fielded. Surely they would rejoice at the sight of the able bodied showing up with the latest and greatest.

Not to mention Ginsburgs ‘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.’ is a clear unambiguous support for concealed carry as a natural component of the rights otherwise protected by 2A!

mshill
11-13-2013, 1:54 PM
Not to mention Ginsburgs ‘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.’ is a clear unambiguous support for concealed carry as a natural component of the rights otherwise protected by 2A!

It is important to keep in mind the context in which Ginsburg was quoted. Scalia is using her words to dispelled Stevens argument that "bear arms" is a collective right related to the militia. I am certain, that in context, Ginsburg is not advocating that any kind of carry being protected by the 2A.

Epaphroditus
11-14-2013, 12:28 PM
Why mention clothing or pockets then? Are the justices so free and casual in their words at such times? Orals are one thing but written dissent is something else.

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws is about all I've got so that's what I do ...

mshill
11-14-2013, 3:32 PM
Why mention clothing or pockets then? Are the justices so free and casual in their words at such times? Orals are one thing but written dissent is something else.

Wishful thinking and grasping at straws is about all I've got so that's what I do ...

Again, keep in mind context. Scalia was quoting from Ginsburgs dissent opinion from Muscarello v. United States. I am not familiar with the case but somewhere in it Ginsburg used the description to define the term "carry a firearm" and likened it to "bear arms" of the 2A.

I can see where it wouldn't be a huge jump to reverse engineer her statement and imply that she was talking about concealed and/or open carry as the right defined by the 2A.

But again, just keep it all in context and don't try to read between the lines and we avoid speculative meanings.

Kharn
11-14-2013, 3:55 PM
Scalia wrote the majority in Heller, not Roberts.

mshill
11-15-2013, 7:58 AM
Scalia wrote the majority in Heller, not Roberts.

You are absolutely right. I made the mistake in the first post and propagated it throughout my responses. I fixed it.