Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eli_underhill t1_iwcy5gj wrote

Reply to comment by bp92009 in Seattle students planning walkout on Monday following Ingraham High shooting by greenhousecrtv

Personal firearm ownership was a thing way before the Heller decision.

1

bp92009 t1_iwd3fhm wrote

Correct, but the modern version of states being unable to put additional restrictions on firearm ownership was invented through decisions made by "Originalist" (also known as conservative wish fulfillment) judges.

It is the result of putting judges who are perfectly happy to decide an election they don't like (Bush vs Gore) and hiding behind a shield of "Originalism" that's handily tossed aside as soon as it accomplishes a political goal of the Conservative party.

It is clear in the text of the second amendment that a well functioning and regulated militia is required for the common defense. In no words does it say anything about the "personal ownership" of firearms. That was invented wholesale by "Originalist" judges.

−2

eli_underhill t1_iwd5hww wrote

Did you forget the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed part?

2

bp92009 t1_iwda4ey wrote

Of course not. Did you forget the first part of that sentence, or did you skip to the end?

"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."

For over Two Hundred Years, that was interpreted as "to ensure the security of a free state, you need to have a well functioning and regulated militia, and for the people actively in that militia, their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Except it already has been, since your average person, even in a militia, cannot own weapons like nuclear bombs.

But skipping over the first part of that, the part that defines the purpose of the amendment, seems to be common for people who pretend that they follow "Originalist" interpretations of the constitution, rather than just admitting that they like guns and want more people to own them. It was only in 2008 that this significant departure from previous understanding was taken, two hundred years later.

−2

eli_underhill t1_iwdodhj wrote

So everything in the bill of rights is for individuals except the 2nd amendment, which preserves the right of the government to keep and bear arms for their security? Okay.

1

bp92009 t1_iwdu9up wrote

Look, if you like guns, that's fine. Just admit that you like guns and you want more of them in people's hands.

The shootings that come at schools are a result of that view, but if personal ownership of guns are more important than stopping school shootings, that's your decision, and the school shootings are the price in blood we pay as a society for it. That and a significant lack of an adequate social safety net around mental Healthcare, economic stability, and the like, when compared to other developed (or even underdeveloped) countries.

The history behind the prior interpretations around the 2nd Amendment before DC vs Heller, and the lack of Originalism in the viewpoints that decided it is well documented.

The Supreme Court took a significant departure from prior interpretations, and essentially invented a new right.

The prior interpretations of the 2nd amendment, for literally two hundred years prior, saw it only as be for the purposes of a functioning militia and the ability for their members to function in that militia.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but two hundred years of decisions and interpretations, overturned by "Originalist" judges in a narrow decision and a radical departure from prior form, are stated facts. They aren't my opinions, they are well documented.

0

eli_underhill t1_iweba2f wrote

Can you show me a Supreme Court opinion from 1822 stating that the 2nd amendment applies to the government’s right to keep and bear arms?

0

bp92009 t1_iweevbj wrote

What an odd year to bring up. Here's two decisions that DC vs Heller effectively overturned, in practice if not officially, by inventing the private right to firearms, rather than its function in a militia (which in turn could generally be regulated by the states).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller - 1939, restriction of firearms not used by the military (short barreled shotguns aren't used by the military, don't relate to the performance of a militia, and aren't protected under those rules).

"it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois - 1886, Unless restrained by their own constitutions, state legislatures may enact statutes to control and regulate all organizations, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations except those which are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. This included their personal equipment.

Private ownership over firearms was seen as something that states could (unless their own constitution prohibited it) restrict, and said States could also restrict non-federal militias and the actions and equipment those militias possessed.

DC vs Heller overturned this by creating the personal ownership right out of thin air, untethered to a militia, in defiance of the prior interpretations of the second amendment, since it was passed.

0

eli_underhill t1_iwegvg4 wrote

The 1822 was in reference to you saying that there have been decisions for the last 200 years.

As for the 1939 part, cool. I’m fine with having access to what the military has. It doesn’t make sense to limit SBRs anymore by that standard, because they’re used by the military today.

The main takeaway from the Presser case was that there is no Second Amendment violation when a state bans private citizens from forming personal military groups, drilling, and parading.

0

bp92009 t1_iwehiy8 wrote

Again, I don't see anything about personal ownership of firearms being protected, because it did not exist outside of relating to a militia, until that right was invented in DC vs Heller.

If that right existed and was recognized by the courts, from 1788 - 2008, please let me know and link the court cases.

1

eli_underhill t1_iwehuna wrote

It didn’t have to go to court, it was clear in the wording of the 2nd amendment

0

bp92009 t1_iwem7qe wrote

Try again, it was previously able to be restricted, and laws implemented by states made no allusion to any personal ownership outside of a militia.

DC vs Heller the first to recognize that interpretation.

If you disagree, please provide citations as to what court case previously recognized personal ownership being the core point of the second amendment.

Laws were on the books that infringed on personal ownership, and the two cases I provided made no reference to any personal ownership, outside of those relating to a militia.

If it was clear in the wording, then why was the first part about militias even included, and why were other restrictions made by states prior to the decision allowed to stand prior.

1

eli_underhill t1_iwennyq wrote

You don’t get to just say “if the Supreme Court didn’t decide it, it’s not the law.”

Could we start arresting people who speak out against Joe Biden? It will be perfectly legal until the Supreme Court says it’s not, right? Or do you think that the 1st amendment is clear enough that you can’t arrest people for speaking out against their leader?

I still don’t understand why you think that something in the bill of rights is talking about giving power over the people, and not to the people, when every other part of it is giving people rights.

The beginning of the transcript for 1789 joint resolution of congress to amend the constitution said “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

Key terms here are to prevent misconstruction and abuse of its powers, and to extend public confidence in the government. Do you really think after saying that, they’ll say that it’s the right of the government to keep and bear arms, or the right of the people? I’ll give you a hint, the second amendment says clearly “the right of the people.” How is “the right of the people” possibly misconstrued?

0