Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > 2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

2nd Amend. Litigation Updates & Legal Discussion Discuss California 2A related litigation and legal topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1801  
Old 12-05-2019, 5:34 PM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jaymz View Post
Am I wrong?
Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #1802  
Old 12-05-2019, 10:23 PM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 407
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
There is at least an argument to be made (although and incorrect one, I believe) that 2A does not apply to an individual right...
That argument makes sense... if you ignore all of colonial American law, policies, rules, practices, procedures, and regulations from 1584 - 1787; a strict linguistic analysis of the text; an analysis of the internal consistency of the Bill of Rights; everything the Founding Fathers wrote or said about it; existing federal law on the definition of a militia; logic; and historical practice. Then, yeah, itís a great case.
Reply With Quote
  #1803  
Old 12-06-2019, 9:12 AM
Friesland's Avatar
Friesland Friesland is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 840
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default Ouch!

Worth a save and then some...

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
That argument makes sense... if you ignore all of colonial American law, policies, rules, practices, procedures, and regulations from 1584 - 1787; a strict linguistic analysis of the text; an analysis of the internal consistency of the Bill of Rights; everything the Founding Fathers wrote or said about it; existing federal law on the definition of a militia; logic; and historical practice. Then, yeah, itís a great case.
__________________
"It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."-
Samuel Adams
Reply With Quote
  #1804  
Old 12-06-2019, 2:29 PM
TruOil TruOil is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 723
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
That argument makes sense... if you ignore all of colonial American law, policies, rules, practices, procedures, and regulations from 1584 - 1787; a strict linguistic analysis of the text; an analysis of the internal consistency of the Bill of Rights; everything the Founding Fathers wrote or said about it; existing federal law on the definition of a militia; logic; and historical practice. Then, yeah, itís a great case.
The argument has its genesis in United States v. Miller, and is the only Supreme Court authority ever offered for that proposition. Then look at Heller, where all nine agreed that it was an individual right (which should put the collective right nonsense to bed), but the dissenters held that it was an individual right to bear arms only while serving in a militia. (Which makes sense, in a way, unless we are talking about crew served weapons (tee hee)--can't have soldiers sharing weapons or anything.) I haven't actually read the dissent in over a decade, so maybe I am shading their argument. Perhaps.
Reply With Quote
  #1805  
Old 12-06-2019, 4:34 PM
natman natman is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 24
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MajorCaliber View Post
This brief touches on a point I have been making for a while:

There is at least an argument to be made (although and incorrect one, I believe) that 2A does not apply to an individual right, just the right of a state to form and arm a militia. There is also an (incorrect) argument to be made that 2A does not apply to modern military style weapons.
Not really. The "collective right" argument had many followers, but it's a classic case of formulating your logic to achieve a desired result. It requires that the phrase "the right of the people" mean one thing in the First Amendment, mean something 180 degrees different in the Second Amendment, then back to the meaning used in the First Amendment for the Fourth Amendment and everywhere else "the People" are referred to in the Bill of Rights. It's ridiculous to state that the Bill of Rights, a collection of limitations on the government to insure individual rights, has made an exception for the Second Amendment and ONLY the Second Amendment.

The Heller decision laid both of these arguments to rest.

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
page 1 [emphsis added]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
page 8

Last edited by natman; 12-06-2019 at 4:37 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #1806  
Old 12-07-2019, 8:58 AM
MajorCaliber MajorCaliber is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 314
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Natman:

I agree completely with that. Both of those anti-2A arguments are wrong.
__________________
I wish today's liberals could understand: You cannot be generous by giving away other peoples' money and you cannot demonstrate your virtue by your willingness to give up other peoples' rights.

The more time I spend on this forum, the more sense kcbrown makes.
Reply With Quote
  #1807  
Old 12-07-2019, 10:04 AM
Offwidth Offwidth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 674
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by natman View Post
Not really. The "collective right" argument had many followers, but it's a classic case of formulating your logic to achieve a desired result. It requires that the phrase "the right of the people" mean one thing in the First Amendment, mean something 180 degrees different in the Second Amendment, then back to the meaning used in the First Amendment for the Fourth Amendment and everywhere else "the People" are referred to in the Bill of Rights. It's ridiculous to state that the Bill of Rights, a collection of limitations on the government to insure individual rights, has made an exception for the Second Amendment and ONLY the Second Amendment.

The Heller decision laid both of these arguments to rest.

Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
page 1 [emphsis added]

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, ... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
page 8
There are judges on the Supreme Court, right now, who would argue against both those points. Four of them. God bless Trump not six of them.

So the argument to be made point is valid. They can make an argument.
Reply With Quote
  #1808  
Old 12-08-2019, 4:25 AM
press1280 press1280 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: WV
Posts: 2,521
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Offwidth View Post
There are judges on the Supreme Court, right now, who would argue against both those points. Four of them. God bless Trump not six of them.

So the argument to be made point is valid. They can make an argument.
Maybe on the first point but on the second point (only weapons at the time of the founding are protected) ALL the libs signed on to Caetano, which rejected this.
Reply With Quote
  #1809  
Old 12-08-2019, 7:52 AM
bigger hammer's Avatar
bigger hammer bigger hammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,790
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

The phrase "the people" or "person" is used in the Bill of Rights six times. According to the antis, five of those times it means what is says, "the people," meaning everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. But according to the antis, in the Second Amendment, it means, "a militia."

If you look at the rest of the Amendments, those phrases are used a total of 20+ times. AGAIN, each time it means everyone subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.

Claiming that the phrases have a different meaning in the Second Amendment is simply wrong. A read of documents from the era in which the Constitution was written, supports this viewpoint, but NOT one that says that the Second Amendment is about a militia.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 6:36 AM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2018, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
Calguns.net and The Calguns Foundation have no affiliation and are in no way related to each other.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.