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 > National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-29-2021, 10:34 AM
dobek's Avatar
dobek dobek is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 644
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default "Shall not be infringed" - Today's SCOTUS rule?

So SCOTUS ruled in an immigration case today and Gorsuch writes: "At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's opinion. "But words are how the law constrains power."

So can we stand on meaning of words? "Shall not be infringed"

Any way that ruling can be used?

Steve
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-29-2021, 1:33 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

That bright line unequivocal reading of ANY amendment (2A included) has NEVER been held by ANY court EVER. Read the 4th amendment and tell me how the state could EVER get a search warrant for your home or papers etc. etc. But... they do rather easily - and always have.

Just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean that it's unequivocal and set in stone. It has never been interpreted that way and never will be.

If 2A were interpreted the way you suggest, EVERY SINGLE firearms law EVER including the 1934 NFA would be unconstitutional. Good luck pushing that interpretation.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-29-2021, 1:57 PM
Citadelgrad87's Avatar
Citadelgrad87 Citadelgrad87 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,261
iTrader: 35 / 100%
Default

Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.

The government DOES restrict speech, it simply does. It DOES search people's homes, etc.

Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony270 View Post
It's easy to be a keyboard warrior, you would melt like wax in front of me, you wouldn't be able to move your lips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by repubconserv View Post
Print it out and frame it for all I care
Quote:
Originally Posted by el chivo View Post
I don't need to think at all..
Quote:
Originally Posted by pjsig View Post
You are talking to someone who already won this lame conversation, not a brick a wall. Too bad you don't realize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sgt. J Beezy View Post
Unfortunately for you, I have the truth on my side and... I’m definitely better than you at what you make a living from.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-29-2021, 2:02 PM
fixitquick79 fixitquick79 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 191
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
That bright line unequivocal reading of ANY amendment (2A included) has NEVER been held by ANY court EVER. Read the 4th amendment and tell me how the state could EVER get a search warrant for your home or papers etc. etc. But... they do rather easily - and always have.

Just because the Constitution says something doesn't mean that it's unequivocal and set in stone. It has never been interpreted that way and never will be.

If 2A were interpreted the way you suggest, EVERY SINGLE firearms law EVER including the 1934 NFA would be unconstitutional. Good luck pushing that interpretation.
I'm sorry but that is a false equivalency. Right in the 4th amendment it says both the words "unreasonable" searches, (leaving wiggle room), and then describes the nature and method of obtaining a warrant to allow said search.

The 2nd is worded in no unceartain terms. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Here is the text of the two in case you are not recalling correctly.

4th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2nd.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

See the difference?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-29-2021, 2:05 PM
Tere_Hanges's Avatar
Tere_Hanges Tere_Hanges is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: CLASSIFIED
Posts: 5,797
iTrader: 43 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
Exactly. Strict scrutiny is never applied to gun laws in the liberal courts. Liberal judges simply refuse to evaluate any gun law using strict scrutiny, claiming "public safety". And SCOTUS has a long track record of ignoring these cases because they would have to evaluate the laws using strict scrutiny if they weighed in. Thats been the single most harmful impediment to judging gun laws fairly, getting a case up to the SCOTUS and applying strict scrutiny.
__________________
CRPA and NRA member.

Don't argue with idiots, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. I don't respond to posts/posters that aren't worth responding to.

Last edited by Tere_Hanges; 04-29-2021 at 2:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-29-2021, 2:11 PM
Jwalt Jwalt is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 551
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When the drafters of the Bill of Rights spoke of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they spoke of that right as they understood it.

It not mean that the accused, not yet found guilty, had the right to bear arms at his own trial. It did not mean that a constable could not disarm the village madman to keep the peace.

It meant the people have the right to keep and bear arms, as they had for eight hundred years already when the earliest Englishmen set out for America. No, not in every place under every circumstance, but I think it would be fair to say they would apply "strict scrutiny" to any law that constrained that right in any way if they knew the term.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-29-2021, 2:20 PM
Tango_Down's Avatar
Tango_Down Tango_Down is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Hill Valley
Posts: 1,176
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixitquick79 View Post
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed most of the time, unless it's a a weekday, weekend or it's raining.”
Here's what they want it amended to.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-29-2021, 2:46 PM
Bert Gamble's Avatar
Bert Gamble Bert Gamble is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Mesquite, Nv
Posts: 3,229
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.

The government DOES restrict speech, it simply does. It DOES search people's homes, etc.

Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
So do you, as a legal mind think that Gorsuch will hold true to what he wrote today, or with SC Justices are all laws different?
__________________
WARNING: This post will most likely contain statements that are offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense, and or maturity.

Satire: A literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
_____________________________________________
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-29-2021, 3:09 PM
Aeneas's Avatar
Aeneas Aeneas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: The Office of Morale Conditioning
Posts: 1,127
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixitquick79 View Post
I'm sorry but that is a false equivalency. Right in the 4th amendment it says both the words "unreasonable" searches, (leaving wiggle room), and then describes the nature and method of obtaining a warrant to allow said search.

The 2nd is worded in no unceartain terms. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Here is the text of the two in case you are not recalling correctly.

4th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2nd.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

See the difference?
Sad that you had to explain that.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-29-2021, 3:21 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.
"Absolutist" is not inconsistent with amendments not being "absolute."

In vacuum, civil rights are expansive and unlimited. In a society, civil rights are limited by other peoples' civil rights. An "absolutist" accepts that the *only* limit on the 2A comes from affecting other peoples' rights, not from government whims or alleged "collective good."
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-29-2021, 3:37 PM
igs igs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aeneas View Post
Sad that you had to explain that.
Sad!
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-29-2021, 3:44 PM
bohoki's Avatar
bohoki bohoki is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: 95401
Posts: 20,654
iTrader: 21 / 100%
Default

and yet biden thinks there are no reasonable voting laws that could prevent ghost voters cause that right is "absolute"
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-29-2021, 4:03 PM
pratchett pratchett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 870
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

The 2nd Amendment isn't - cannot - be absolute. And you agree, unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy. The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective.

Believing otherwise isn't absolutism. It's anarchy.

Am I happy with gun laws in California? Certainly not. But if you believe anarchy is the answer, that'll be a lonely, frustrating, and unproductive journey for you.

Last edited by pratchett; 04-29-2021 at 4:27 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-29-2021, 5:33 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't - cannot - be absolute. And you agree, unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy. The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective.

Believing otherwise isn't absolutism. It's anarchy.

Am I happy with gun laws in California? Certainly not. But if you believe anarchy is the answer, that'll be a lonely, frustrating, and unproductive journey for you.
I am ok with a good deal of anarchy. Much preferred over the boot of the state on your neck.

As for absolute limits, try this this one:

"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-29-2021, 6:11 PM
hermosabeach's Avatar
hermosabeach hermosabeach is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: South Bay of Los Angeles
Posts: 18,384
iTrader: 12 / 100%
Default

Ugh

When Obama was sworn in the US had less than 8T in debt
In the first 6 months of Biden and his party wants to spend 8T to rebuild roads and other silly stuff.

I’m not sure how much of anything matters. The court might get packet and then prior rulings might not hold the traditional value that legal prescient holds today.
__________________
Rule 1- ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED

Rule 2 -NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY (including your hands and legs)

Rule 3 -KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET

Rule 4 -BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET AND WHAT IS BEYOND IT
(thanks to Jeff Cooper)
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-29-2021, 6:39 PM
IronsightsRifleman's Avatar
IronsightsRifleman IronsightsRifleman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2020
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 586
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

The problem is that we are already so far down the slippery slope that just getting a little higher out of the ditch seems like a mighty victory. Woo-hoo, let's celebrate that there are some kind of guns that don't need to be kept disassembled in our own homes!
I think a very reasonable stance would draw the line at weapons of indiscriminate or mass destruction. Otherwise, the Constitution says what it says. It's in the Bill of Rights after all, it's not just one of those amendments that came as an afterthought... like the right to not be enslaved, or giving women the right to vote. No one would think of walking those things back. Nothing else in the Constitution has been trampled on like 2A.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-29-2021, 9:12 PM
igs igs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't - cannot - be absolute. And you agree, unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy. The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective.

Believing otherwise isn't absolutism. It's anarchy.

Am I happy with gun laws in California? Certainly not. But if you believe anarchy is the answer, that'll be a lonely, frustrating, and unproductive journey for you.
You make anarchy sound like it's bad thing.

__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-29-2021, 10:45 PM
gobler's Avatar
gobler gobler is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SGV near Azusa
Posts: 3,334
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I have always read the 2nd Amendment was the only one to be absolute. All the others have some form of interpretation. 2A is the only amendment right that plainly states Shall Not be Infringed.. So long as I am not hurting anyone, I do have the absolute right to own whatever I can afford.
__________________
Quote:
200 bullets at a time......
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-5/198981/life01.jpg

Subscribe to my YouTube channel ---->http://www.youtube.com/user/2A4USA
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-30-2021, 7:15 AM
SpookyWatcher SpookyWatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 159
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm tired of this Bullchit argument of "there's limits on the 1A so limits of course are ok on 2A. You can't yell fire in a theatre... Blah blah blah "

The limits on 1A are directly related to whether the speech wtc directly harm or violate another's rights.

You can't yell fire when there isn't because of the ham to another. Or slander etc.

Carrying outside the home does NOT harm or violate anyone else's rights. There is no equivalency.

The equivocation of limits on free speech is a specious argument and I'm fooking tired of hearing it.

An appropriate equivalent is saying you can't just walk out into the street and start pulling "desk pops". Because that would harm someone else and therefore that CAN be regulated.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-30-2021, 7:54 AM
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 11,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.

The government DOES restrict speech, it simply does. It DOES search people's homes, etc.

Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
So what level of slavery do you think the 13th amendment allows? Maybe I can’t own a Black person but can I buy an Asian person?
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-30-2021, 8:08 AM
NorthBay Shooter NorthBay Shooter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 673
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

How can anyone ever listen to the president again in regards to the constitution. He actually said, that We The People, means the government. He is totally clueless. If no amendments are absolute, then perhaps some restrictions on 19th so that Nancy or Kamala can't vote. Or the 13th, or the 15th.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-30-2021, 3:39 PM
johncage johncage is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 993
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
You make anarchy sound like it's bad thing.

if only there were real world examples of anarchy we can use as examples instead of meme based propaganda...



Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-30-2021, 3:57 PM
igs igs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johncage View Post
if only there were real world examples of anarchy we can use as examples instead of meme based propaganda...
How is a dictatorship anarchy? It's the complete opposite LOL
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-30-2021, 10:25 PM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Citadelgrad87 View Post
Much as I hate agreeing with Biden, he is correct, no amendment is "absolute", even though I frequently tell people I am a second amendment absolutist.

The government DOES restrict speech, it simply does. It DOES search people's homes, etc.

Where to draw that line is the bugaboo. Shall not be infringed tells me that strict scrutiny of any government restriction is in order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by California_Deplorable View Post
Exactly. Strict scrutiny is never applied to gun laws in the liberal courts. Liberal judges simply refuse to evaluate any gun law using strict scrutiny, claiming "public safety". And SCOTUS has a long track record of ignoring these cases because they would have to evaluate the laws using strict scrutiny if they weighed in. Thats been the single most harmful impediment to judging gun laws fairly, getting a case up to the SCOTUS and applying strict scrutiny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jwalt View Post
When the drafters of the Bill of Rights spoke of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they spoke of that right as they understood it.

It not mean that the accused, not yet found guilty, had the right to bear arms at his own trial. It did not mean that a constable could not disarm the village madman to keep the peace.

It meant the people have the right to keep and bear arms, as they had for eight hundred years already when the earliest Englishmen set out for America. No, not in every place under every circumstance, but I think it would be fair to say they would apply "strict scrutiny" to any law that constrained that right in any way if they knew the term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
"Absolutist" is not inconsistent with amendments not being "absolute."

In vacuum, civil rights are expansive and unlimited. In a society, civil rights are limited by other peoples' civil rights. An "absolutist" accepts that the *only* limit on the 2A comes from affecting other peoples' rights, not from government whims or alleged "collective good."
Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't - cannot - be absolute. And you agree, unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy. The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective...
This is the core of the discussion when it comes to the question posed in the OP...

Quote:
Originally Posted by dobek View Post
So SCOTUS ruled in an immigration case today and Gorsuch writes: "At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court's opinion. "But words are how the law constrains power."

So can we stand on meaning of words? "Shall not be infringed"

Any way that ruling can be used?
What you see in many of the other posts is the problem with becoming overly consumed by original definition as opposed to original intent/meaning. In fact, as highlighted by this piece, that's precisely what is shown in the Gorsuch opinion vs. the Kavanaugh dissent...

Quote:
...Gorsuch said the word “a” before “notice to appear” indicates that all the required information must be in one notice. The word “a” signals that Congress was referring to a discrete, countable thing, he said.

“Someone who agrees to buy ‘a car’ would hardly expect to receive the chassis today, wheels next week, and an engine to follow,” Gorsuch wrote.

“At one level, today’s dispute may seem semantic, focused on a single word, a small one at that,” Gorsuch said. “But words are how the law constrains power. In this case, the law’s terms ensure that, when the federal government seeks a procedural advantage against an individual, it will at least supply him with a single and reasonably comprehensive statement of the nature of the proceedings against him. If men must turn square corners when they deal with the government, it cannot be too much to expect the government to turn square corners when it deals with them.”

Kavanaugh’s dissent said he found the majority’s conclusion “rather perplexing as a matter of statutory interpretation and common sense.”

“If Congress actually wanted to require a single document to stop the 10-year clock, Congress easily could have (and surely would have) said so,” Kavanaugh wrote...
It's why Scalia noted that originalism/textualism was a point of beginning and not, of necessity, the be all, end all of the interpretation. Such is particularly important when looking to "shall not be infringed." While it may appear to be 'semantics' to some, that phrase had a meaning at the time of the Founding and it wasn't the 'absolutism' many propose today. In a nutshell, it wasn't about 'no restriction.' It was about 'violation' of the right and a breaching of the 'social contract' in 'violating the right' that is, by definition, what the Constitution/Bill of Rights represents.

A 'restriction' on the exercise of a right within the context of society is not, by definition, a violation of the right, no matter how, individually, we may perceive it as such. The question is whether such a restriction or assemblage of restrictions violates the right itself, thus violating or breaking the social contract. This is precisely what you see in judicial decisions. An example I just used on another thread on the same topic of "infringe" is...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
...Take Heller...

Quote:
The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
Does that speak to "the right" or does it speak to the "contract" and violation of said "contract" or does it differentiate between aspects of both? As a result, "licensing" was not deemed a 'destruction' of the right or a 'contract' violation; at least within the confines of that, specific case. However, the limitation of a ban and disassembly/trigger-locks was considered a violation of the 'contract' in that it was considered a violation of the core of the right protected by the 'contract.' Not simply an 'hindrance' on the exercise of the right, but a violation of the right itself.
As I further noted, we know, by definition, that there existed limitations on exercise of the right at the time of the Founding. Even ignoring Scalia's reference to "affrighting" (in the Chris Wallace interview that I've posted numerous times) we know that the word "militia," then and now, referred to the "able-bodied" and, at the time, "male." While Heller took great pains to separate the right from service in a militia, it is still a significant factor in the motivation behind codification. (Although, as I have observed on several occasions, not only was the 'militia' not the ONLY factor motivating codification, Scalia specifically warned not to confuse 'reasons for codification' with the 'right' itself.)

Thus, in a sense, 'amendments' insofar as 'understanding' of what is permissible insofar as exercise of the right itself have been allowed to what was specifically codified (vis a vis the strict definition of the words used) over time... IF... we become overly consumed by original definition as opposed to original intent/meaning. We now don't limit the right solely to 'able-bodied males' and, arguably, neither did the Founders in a pragmatic sense. In the same vein, limitations on exercise of the right have been 'allowed' and have been there from the beginning.

Where one has to be careful with something like 'strict scrutiny' in evaluating what was "meant," how a word/phrase was "defined," and what is deemed "judicial intent" (both good and nefarious) is what I was referring to when I said, in the same post, intellectual consistency becomes somewhat malleable when theory confronts application and such malleability can be 'reasonable' and 'nefarious' depending on the individual and the application. Put another way, don't confuse the theoretical with the motivation/reasoning behind a specific application or with the actual application.

But, that brings us back to Pratchett's statement, something I've also noted regularly - The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective... This is the crux of the matter and the very basis upon which we evaluate a decision regarding it being "good" or "nefarious." The problem is that each of us has a personal 'marker' in terms of where the 'balance point' should be. Judges/Justices don't, at least in theory, have such a luxury. Their 'balance point' has to be within the confines of the law, precedent, etc. At least it is supposed to be and such is not limited to just what one personally is aware of or "feels" was meant.

It's part of why there's the old joke (with myriad variations) that you can put 5 lawyers in a room, give them a 'problem,' and end up with 50 different interpretations. Basically, it comes down to a lot of "If - Then" conjecturing. In that context...
  • IF the meaning of "infringe" is absolute, THEN we should be able to stand on the meaning of "shall not be infringed."
  • IF the meaning of "infringe" is/was a bit more nuanced, THEN simple reliance on the meaning is more contextual.
As has now been documented, it is the second which is true, not the first, particularly when it comes to jurisprudence. Bearing in mind that 2nd Amendment jurisprudence is still 'young' in terms of the number of cases and, particularly, based on the now-established precedent of an "individual right" (something which was 'traditional understanding,' but not 'precedent' until 2008), many of the details over specifics are still being 'worked through.' In fact, as I have repeatedly noted, that was Scalia's very plan with Heller... Step One, declare individual right; Step Two, incorporate to the States; Step Three, use individual cases to clarify the details, i.e., create precedent insofar as the breadth/depth and 'permissible limitations' of the right.

The fact that members of SCOTUS prevented Scalia from engaging in "Step Three" frustrated him until his death, as it also frustrated and continues to frustrate Thomas, not to mention, at least to some degree, has irritated Alito and, perhaps to a lesser degree, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-01-2021, 1:06 AM
DB> DB> is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 772
iTrader: 26 / 100%
Default

One persons anarchy is another persons freedom coupled with responsibility.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-01-2021, 1:25 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DB> View Post
One persons anarchy is another persons freedom coupled with responsibility.
But, that raises the very question/issue...

When does someone's sense of responsibility (or lack thereof) become anarchical to the rest of society and where is the balance point between 'securing individual rights' and introducing 'chaos' to a society, which, by definition is based on a certain sense/amount of 'order?'
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-01-2021, 8:01 AM
igs igs is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 921
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia View Post
But, that raises the very question/issue...

When does someone's sense of responsibility (or lack thereof) become anarchical to the rest of society and where is the balance point between 'securing individual rights' and introducing 'chaos' to a society, which, by definition is based on a certain sense/amount of 'order?'
Anarchy vs government is not about chaos vs order. People often confuse the two. Plenty of volunteer organizations have well ordered rules but they are not a government.
__________________
ATF Form 4473: If a frame or receiver can only be made into a long gun (rifle or shotgun), it is still a frame or receiver, not a handgun or long gun.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-01-2021, 1:47 PM
Weezard Weezard is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
Anarchy vs government is not about chaos vs order. People often confuse the two. Plenty of volunteer organizations have well ordered rules but they are not a government.
If they have well ordered rules and a means of enforcing them they are functionally a government. Which shows that in the absence of government some form of government will arise.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-02-2021, 1:47 AM
TrappedinCalifornia's Avatar
TrappedinCalifornia TrappedinCalifornia is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: What Used to be a Great State
Posts: 5,491
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by igs View Post
Anarchy vs government is not about chaos vs order. People often confuse the two. Plenty of volunteer organizations have well ordered rules but they are not a government.
Anarchy is, at its base, defined as an 'absence of Government or Government authority.' In one sense, it is simply defined as an "absence of order." Thus, it could be said that 'anarchy' is present when society lacks 'authoritative order;' where the recognized 'authority' is dependent upon the type of 'society' or 'community' being referenced, be it family group, village, commune, et al.

In a more esoteric sense, that means 'anarchy' is akin to a 'vacuum' in which 'order' based on establishment/tradition or authority or both is missing or fundamentally so. Nature abhors a 'vacuum' and will seek to fill it with... something. Even space is not a 'perfect' vacuum. Thus...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weezard View Post
If they have well ordered rules and a means of enforcing them they are functionally a government. Which shows that in the absence of government some form of government will arise.
At no time has man ever existed, as a species, in a truly anarchical state. Even after God created Adam and before God created Eve (or Lilith, claimed by some to have been Adam's "first wife"), Adam was subject to God's Law. In fact, that's the very thing Lucifer/Satan stands accused of; i.e., the introduction of 'chaos' to the order found under God's Law. It's the very 'crime' that Adam and Eve were punished for committing; abandoning God's Law in search of what could be described as a "New Order" derived from... something else (their own 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' if you will).

While all Life may exist in a state of 'balance' between utter chaos and absolute order, it is that very same type of balance which is being referenced by "shall not be infringed." What 'state' do "We the People" wish to live in between utter chaos (complete anarchy) and absolute order (totalitarian rule)? As noted, there is no perfect state for either in Nature and, as we know, change is not only inevitable, it is necessary in many ways; such that even the Constitution provides processes by which 'change' can be made, but in such a way as to forestall a sense of chaos while protecting against a perception of 'absolute' order.

Which is why I said...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrappedinCalifornia
Quote:
Originally Posted by DB> View Post
One persons anarchy is another persons freedom coupled with responsibility.
But, that raises the very question/issue...

When does someone's sense of responsibility (or lack thereof) become anarchical to the rest of society and where is the balance point between 'securing individual rights' and introducing 'chaos' to a society, which, by definition is based on a certain sense/amount of 'order?'

Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 05-02-2021 at 2:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-02-2021, 9:41 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fixitquick79 View Post
I'm sorry but that is a false equivalency. Right in the 4th amendment it says both the words "unreasonable" searches, (leaving wiggle room), and then describes the nature and method of obtaining a warrant to allow said search.

The 2nd is worded in no unceartain terms. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that.

Here is the text of the two in case you are not recalling correctly.

4th.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2nd.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

See the difference?
IF your analysis were correct, surely you'd be able to point me to ONE single court case that has EVER held 2A to be absolutely invioate.

I shall remind you of the FIRST Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet, you CAN'T yell fire in a crowded theater or incite a riot. Your fundamentalist strict constructionist theory is just not right nor has it EVER been followed. We NEED to move past it.

Last edited by CAL.BAR; 05-02-2021 at 9:53 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 05-02-2021, 9:52 AM
Elgatodeacero Elgatodeacero is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,234
iTrader: 4 / 100%
Default

Arguing that a right is not “absolute” seems a little silly in light of the 9th Circuit Ct. of Appeals recently ruling that the language of the 2nd Amendment essentially has no meaning and confers zero rights to the people to “bear arms”.

The Courts have failed, not the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-02-2021, 7:58 PM
snailbait snailbait is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 117
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
IF your analysis were correct, surely you'd be able to point me to ONE single court case that has EVER held 2A to be absolutely invioate.

I shall remind you of the FIRST Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And yet, you CAN'T yell fire in a crowded theater or incite a riot. Your fundamentalist strict constructionist theory is just not right nor has it EVER been followed. We NEED to move past it.

The "can't yell fire in a crowed theater" base canard again.

2 seconds with a search engine would get you this:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...-quote/264449/
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-03-2021, 6:55 AM
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 11,791
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater is a terrible analogy anyways. Falsely yelling fire and causing a panic would be the equivalent of firing rounds into the air.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-03-2021, 10:38 AM
Usmc0844spare's Avatar
Usmc0844spare Usmc0844spare is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,199
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy
You will be surprised by how many whackados on here would profess to be OK with EXACTLY those things as a consequence of an unfettered strict interpretation of "shall not be infringed".
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-03-2021, 11:10 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
The 2nd Amendment isn't - cannot - be absolute. And you agree, unless you want 9-year-olds bringing automatic weapons to school, and people openly carrying grenades, and those ideas are lunacy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Usmc0844spare View Post
You will be surprised by how many whackados on here would profess to be OK with EXACTLY those things as a consequence of an unfettered strict interpretation of "shall not be infringed".
The only way to prevent it is to restrict access to automatic weapons and grenades. If they are available, laws won't prevent carrying, much like laws don't prevent carrying handguns in Chicago or NYC. A kid bringing an automatic weapon to school is quite similar to a kid bringing an assault weapon to school.

So, the question is whether automatic weapons and grenades should be available at all or not. If you make an argument against automatic weapons and grenades, it will be the same argument that the left is making against the so-called assault weapons. The difference is only where you draw the line and why. In fact, Bloomberg believed that banning assault weapons was banning guns that go "trrrrr...trrrr...trrr" with a single trigger pull, so he also thought that only "whackados" would support legal assault weapons.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-03-2021, 11:19 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pratchett View Post
The only question is where you want to draw the line, and that's the basic definitional function of all governments, ever: balancing the individual and the collective.

Believing otherwise isn't absolutism. It's anarchy.
The question is indeed about where you draw the line, but it's not "individual vs. collective," it's "individual vs. other people's individual rights."

The very phrase "shall not be infringed" precludes the "collective" argument as the limit. The limits must be solely from collision between individual rights of other people. Saying that "the collective will be safer without guns" cannot be used to draw the line; saying that "you cannot point a gun at someone" can.

So there is still "absolutism" but it's quite a bit more nuanced than the debate between "there can be no regulation" (which is false; there are regulations that are NOT an infringement) and "regulation in general is allowed because the right is not absolute" (which is false even if we don't get into what "absolute" in the context of civil rights means - permissible regulation must be along the lines of strict scrutiny).
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-03-2021, 11:25 AM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Your fundamentalist strict constructionist theory is just not right nor has it EVER been followed. We NEED to move past it.
We agree on something... yay. Not every regulation is an infringement and no court will ever twist the meaning of the word "infringe" to mean "no regulation whatsoever."

However, the debate is really not about "all or nothing," it's about how and where the limits are. The courts have interpreted Scalia's "does not mean any weapon in any place in any manner" (paraphrasing) to simply mean "regulation is allowed, the government set a regulation, so the government wins." This is patently wrong and is about to get untangled by the Supreme Court.

We still likely don't agree on where and how the lines can be set. IIRC, you believe in the Democrats' versions of "common sense gun control." It's not common sense and it certainly infringes on 2A.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-03-2021, 11:28 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
The question is indeed about where you draw the line, but it's not "individual vs. collective," it's "individual vs. other people's individual rights."

The very phrase "shall not be infringed" precludes the "collective" argument as the limit. The limits must be solely from collision between individual rights of other people. Saying that "the collective will be safer without guns" cannot be used to draw the line; saying that "you cannot point a gun at someone" can.

So there is still "absolutism" but it's quite a bit more nuanced than the debate between "there can be no regulation" (which is false; there are regulations that are NOT an infringement) and "regulation in general is allowed because the right is not absolute" (which is false even if we don't get into what "absolute" in the context of civil rights means - permissible regulation must be along the lines of strict scrutiny).
Quite right and well said. NOW just talk to the REST of Cal.Guns folk who insist on claiming 2A is inviolate and no conversations can be held period. We can't have an intelligent dialog with people with their hands over their ears yelling "la,la la - I want things MY way no matter what".
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-03-2021, 11:46 AM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is offline
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 5,625
iTrader: 11 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IVC View Post
We agree on something... yay. Not every regulation is an infringement and no court will ever twist the meaning of the word "infringe" to mean "no regulation whatsoever."

However, the debate is really not about "all or nothing," it's about how and where the limits are. The courts have interpreted Scalia's "does not mean any weapon in any place in any manner" (paraphrasing) to simply mean "regulation is allowed, the government set a regulation, so the government wins." This is patently wrong and is about to get untangled by the Supreme Court.

We still likely don't agree on where and how the lines can be set. IIRC, you believe in the Democrats' versions of "common sense gun control." It's not common sense and it certainly infringes on 2A.
Fantastic! A dialog. I agree 100% it is all about drawing lines. BUT, as you can see just in this thread, we have a great many folks hereabouts who are not yet ready for an actual dialog. They continue to insist that things be as they imagine rather than how they are.

NOW - on the line drawing. Well, back in 1934 the line was drawn at full auto and SBR and silencers etc. NO court has EVER even HINTED at striking that down. Sorry, but that is the LAW and has been for nearly 90 years. CA and other states say NO NFA's. I don't like it, but I don't think that will change, right? So... if states CAN say what types of guns we can have - we had better be in the discussion about it.

NO I don't like Democrats "common sense"gun control when it comes to stopping people from getting damn near anything they want. BUT... I see NO problem with background checks, AND waiting periods for people who are getting their FIRST (and only first) gun.

I agree that WE (gun owners) need to help stop the mentally infirm from getting and having firearms. Gun owners should be on the forefront of that because if we don't we see what will happen. Those lunatics WILL continue to shoot up schools and churches and malls etc. giving yet more ammo to the anti-gunners. With each shooting the noose tightens.

WE need to stop the mantra that the 2A is inviolate and therefore felons or the mentally unfit or people convicted of violent crimes should have access to guns because ït''s a god given constitutional right"....

This ALL starts with a dialog. A dialog between the NRA and/or gun owners and Democrats. A dialog that cannot be had when one side says "not one step backwards"... or..... "ALL guns must be taken away".

Sadly I am just not hearing any dialog or opportunity to discuss this matter intelligently. We KNOW what we want. We want lunatics to stop shooting up schools and malls.(at least I HOPE that is the case) Now we can't get to or know all the lunatics before they act, but OFTEN there are signs. Parents, spouses, friends and family will often say "well, he was going through a lot" or "he had mental health issues".... OK if THEY know about it, THEY can help stop it. Yes, Red Flag laws. That coupled with a LAW banning the publication of the shooter's name and identity will go a long way to slowing or stopping the mass shooting epidemic we are seeing. THAT is the only way to buy time for firearms ownership here in the US. And I say ""buy time" because I am convinced that population increases may eventually render most firearms ownership impractical and thus irrelevant. (but that is a different discussion)
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-03-2021, 12:03 PM
IVC's Avatar
IVC IVC is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Temecula
Posts: 17,587
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Fantastic! A dialog. I agree 100% it is all about drawing lines. BUT, as you can see just in this thread, we have a great many folks hereabouts who are not yet ready for an actual dialog. They continue to insist that things be as they imagine rather than how they are.
That IS a dialog. We don't all have to agree. Stating different opinions is a dialog.

There is no point in pushing a single version of "truth," that's how we ended up in this mess as a country where the mainstream propaganda wants to define "the truth" and silence anyone who doesn't conform. In case of 2A, there are two separate issues - what we believe the meaning is, which is open to debate and opinions, and, what we believe the courts will do, which we can figure out empirically.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Member
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 12:58 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, 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 2002-2021, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.
All opinions, statements and remarks made by Calguns.net on this web site and elsewhere are solely attributable to Calguns.net.



Seams2SewBySusy