since9
Campaign Veteran
I disagree. I find it's usually right.
But I only disagree in part, as it's sometimes wrong. Moreover, I do agree that it's at least often "not quite right," usually distorted by wayward precedent.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Current Status of Heller II?
- Thread starter TFred
- Start date
I disagree. I find it's usually right.
But I only disagree in part, as it's sometimes wrong. Moreover, I do agree that it's at least often "not quite right," usually distorted by wayward precedent.
WVCDL Quote #3:
"As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence /// If our job were to decree /// might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."
Search word: decree
Match: Court PDF p. 95. (Dissent p. 50)
Author: Yep, looks like Kavanaugh this time.
Text: Looks accurate and complete copy.
WVCDL Context: "most chilling words from Judge Kavanaugh’s pen /// QUOTE /// Those are not the words of a man who understands or supports the Second Amendment. /// Further, we are not in the business of merely 'defending' gun rights. We are in the business of advancing them."
Original Context: "the proper test to apply is Heller’s history- and tradition-based test. /// D.C.’s strict registration law is not 'longstanding' /// violates the Second Amendment /// As one who was born here, grew up in this community /// QUOTE /// But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with /// the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"
(Yes, that's taken a bit out of context. Context very important for this quote.)
"As a citizen, I certainly share the goal of Police Chief Cathy Lanier to reduce and hopefully eliminate the senseless violence /// If our job were to decree /// might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."
Search word: decree
Match: Court PDF p. 95. (Dissent p. 50)
Author: Yep, looks like Kavanaugh this time.
Text: Looks accurate and complete copy.
WVCDL Context: "most chilling words from Judge Kavanaugh’s pen /// QUOTE /// Those are not the words of a man who understands or supports the Second Amendment. /// Further, we are not in the business of merely 'defending' gun rights. We are in the business of advancing them."
Original Context: "the proper test to apply is Heller’s history- and tradition-based test. /// D.C.’s strict registration law is not 'longstanding' /// violates the Second Amendment /// As one who was born here, grew up in this community /// QUOTE /// But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with /// the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional"
(Yes, that's taken a bit out of context. Context very important for this quote.)
So you agree that "sensitive places" are off limits, constitutionally?
OMGoodness, can you two get any more oblique in your ‘definite MAYBE’ regarding sometimes its ‘usually right’ but ‘sometimes its wrong’ or ‘not quite right’ but ‘usually distorted;’ or do you agree constitutionally ‘sensitive places are off limits’ nonsensical rhetoric!
While i’m sure you two enjoy the dance together neither of you know who is leading the other.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
From Heller:
“Such as” means “for example.” This phrase doesn’t mean all government buildings. For example and in general, in Kentucky and Ohio you can Open carry in state government buildings. And for example, courts and prisons you cannot carry.
So, the laws enacted after the implementation of the 2A hold more weight than the 2A itself?
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Take it up with the courts. I'm sure they will give you an answer you won't like.
Right. That's my point. We live and die by what the court says, regardless of how plain and simple the founding father's were.
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
The Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 553, 23 L.Ed 588 (1876) declared that the right of “bearing arms for a lawful purpose.” was not granted by the Constitution. The understanding was that it was in existence before the Constitution. “The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.”
No court including Heller has ever overturned Cruikshank.
In 2008 the United States Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) declared “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.” The Court then cited Cruikshank as part of its historical analysis. Thus, Heller held that the right to bear arms for a lawful purpose was secured by the U.S. Constitution.
More importantly, Heller did not limit the right to bear arms. It specifically stated, “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” The Court reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.”
Simply put, the Heller court speaks out of both sides of their mouths.
Right.
So I would agree with WVCDL that some of Kavanaugh’s personal convictions (at least those he stated) do not look the strongest on gun rights. Not as strong as our 2A activists here on this forum. I don't agree with his statements about gun regulations and crime; hated that part. And (a second point of theirs, his professional views) they have a fair criticism that he's mostly going by precedent and tradition. That could be dangerous if any unconstitutional restriction exists long enough in a court's opinion ("longstanding") to be grandfathered and embraced, possibly to be used as a new precedent for other restrictions. That's troubling for me too.
But WVCDL misses on the first point that Kavanaugh was using his personal views as an intentional contrast, highlighting them, to emphasize that as a judge he is using other criteria instead. His job is judge, not activist or police chief, or some imaginary entity that "decrees" policy. That means the personal views he put down were also a hypothetical "if ... might" and not a real existing situation or decision for him. So that might not necessarily represent the whole of his personal views.
When it comes to the second point of his professional views and the issue of precedent and tradition, the reason he went on and on for pages is this was the heart of how the court would approach and decide the case, the scrutiny and so on. Judges also have to use precedent or they don't have much footing and would be seriously shaking the boat they are in. As an outsider I would like for them to shake that boat more when precedent conflicts with the Constitution, but obviously they are invested in their system. They are usually going to have that bias.
WVCDL really messed up when they attributed a Ginsburg quote to Kavanaugh. How did that even happen? Easy to happen for one person, we can all mess up. But publishing an organization's official anti-candidate statement signed by 8 people, to "interpret" the court statements for readers and suggesting that among 2A orgs backing Kavanaugh, "we can only conclude that none of them have bothered to read his dissent" - wow. Such a big and obvious mistake shouldn't happen, especially while bragging about being the only careful readers. Obviously this wasn't double-checked enough before publishing; bad habits, too much trust in self and group. That mistake probably also led their writer to view K's other statements harshly and ignore some of the context.
Loser: WVCDL. Despite having a couple of legitimate points that they could have made more effectively if they hadn't been so careless.
Winner: Kavanaugh. I think we should support this guy.
Bottom line: As COL already pointed out with a similar quote, notice that if K had prevailed, the result would have been "the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional" etc. That's not bad at all. That's better than usual. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about how he will argue other specific 2A issues. Might not always go the way you expect. But on the whole I would expect him to be at least OK for guns rights. Maybe OK, maybe great.
I think GOA had it right:
All of this discussion is useless if people don't vote this year. I don't care whether you love Trump, or have TDS, or hate Trump but deny TDS, or whatever. You can see the Trump is picking good judges that we need, so if you believe in 2A, let's get it done. Get some people out to vote this year, make a Red Wave to support our 2A rights, and also make the appropriate contacts now to support Judge K's confirmation.
(WVCDL is entitled to their opinion, but at least needs to publish a correction on the facts.)
But WVCDL misses on the first point that Kavanaugh was using his personal views as an intentional contrast, highlighting them, to emphasize that as a judge he is using other criteria instead. His job is judge, not activist or police chief, or some imaginary entity that "decrees" policy. That means the personal views he put down were also a hypothetical "if ... might" and not a real existing situation or decision for him. So that might not necessarily represent the whole of his personal views.
When it comes to the second point of his professional views and the issue of precedent and tradition, the reason he went on and on for pages is this was the heart of how the court would approach and decide the case, the scrutiny and so on. Judges also have to use precedent or they don't have much footing and would be seriously shaking the boat they are in. As an outsider I would like for them to shake that boat more when precedent conflicts with the Constitution, but obviously they are invested in their system. They are usually going to have that bias.
WVCDL really messed up when they attributed a Ginsburg quote to Kavanaugh. How did that even happen? Easy to happen for one person, we can all mess up. But publishing an organization's official anti-candidate statement signed by 8 people, to "interpret" the court statements for readers and suggesting that among 2A orgs backing Kavanaugh, "we can only conclude that none of them have bothered to read his dissent" - wow. Such a big and obvious mistake shouldn't happen, especially while bragging about being the only careful readers. Obviously this wasn't double-checked enough before publishing; bad habits, too much trust in self and group. That mistake probably also led their writer to view K's other statements harshly and ignore some of the context.
Loser: WVCDL. Despite having a couple of legitimate points that they could have made more effectively if they hadn't been so careless.
Winner: Kavanaugh. I think we should support this guy.
Bottom line: As COL already pointed out with a similar quote, notice that if K had prevailed, the result would have been "the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun registration requirement are unconstitutional" etc. That's not bad at all. That's better than usual. I wouldn't jump to conclusions about how he will argue other specific 2A issues. Might not always go the way you expect. But on the whole I would expect him to be at least OK for guns rights. Maybe OK, maybe great.
I think GOA had it right:
All of this discussion is useless if people don't vote this year. I don't care whether you love Trump, or have TDS, or hate Trump but deny TDS, or whatever. You can see the Trump is picking good judges that we need, so if you believe in 2A, let's get it done. Get some people out to vote this year, make a Red Wave to support our 2A rights, and also make the appropriate contacts now to support Judge K's confirmation.
(WVCDL is entitled to their opinion, but at least needs to publish a correction on the facts.)
And remember you don't have to like everything about Trump to support Trump's 2A Judges. And to support a GOP majority to hold the line.
I threw in a little joke there about TDS, because of another thread, but this is a serious matter and I know Trump is not the strongest on 2A. You may have very legitimate reasons. I've criticized him strongly here on some moves he made. (ERPO, Age, Bump.) But he is doing some good things for 2A with judges (SC and for lower courts) and in a few other ways. It does help when he talks about 2A as president, supports arming teachers and having people shooting back at terrorists. I think Trump is actually great on economy, industry, and some other issues, but it's OK if we disagree on some of those. He supports 2A as he understands it, he wants to preserve it, but his understanding on that particular topic is limited. Hopefully he's learning. We'll see. Either way, it's either him or a rabidly anti-gun Democrat. Those are the only two possibilities during these years.
Meanwhile we need the better judges that he's cranking out. That's the real situation. And we need to keep what we have, not lose everything we've worked for. The opposition is actually being honest nowadays finally about what they want - to take away your guns if they get half a chance.
So don't miss out on this opportunity. You need 2A. If you sit this year out because of Trump (and it's not even a presidential voting year), you will only hurt yourself. Losing your 2A rights as a sort of silent protest? That doesn't seem like a winning position; only you lose something, and your protest will be unnoticed. If you support Judge K and good GOP candidates, you win. Looks like an easy decision which action benefits you. So keep on supporting 2A with your votes.
I threw in a little joke there about TDS, because of another thread, but this is a serious matter and I know Trump is not the strongest on 2A. You may have very legitimate reasons. I've criticized him strongly here on some moves he made. (ERPO, Age, Bump.) But he is doing some good things for 2A with judges (SC and for lower courts) and in a few other ways. It does help when he talks about 2A as president, supports arming teachers and having people shooting back at terrorists. I think Trump is actually great on economy, industry, and some other issues, but it's OK if we disagree on some of those. He supports 2A as he understands it, he wants to preserve it, but his understanding on that particular topic is limited. Hopefully he's learning. We'll see. Either way, it's either him or a rabidly anti-gun Democrat. Those are the only two possibilities during these years.
Meanwhile we need the better judges that he's cranking out. That's the real situation. And we need to keep what we have, not lose everything we've worked for. The opposition is actually being honest nowadays finally about what they want - to take away your guns if they get half a chance.
So don't miss out on this opportunity. You need 2A. If you sit this year out because of Trump (and it's not even a presidential voting year), you will only hurt yourself. Losing your 2A rights as a sort of silent protest? That doesn't seem like a winning position; only you lose something, and your protest will be unnoticed. If you support Judge K and good GOP candidates, you win. Looks like an easy decision which action benefits you. So keep on supporting 2A with your votes.
How you gonna lose your 2A rights? Judges don't repeal amendments, the people do. Good luck getting that to happen.
2a4all
Regular Member
Judges don't repeal amendments, but they can and do uphold laws that limit the scope of amendments.
On Nov 27th 2017, SCOTUS declined to review the Fourth Circuit’s holding in Kolbe v. Hogan (a Maryland case) that semi-automatic rifles are not constitutionally protected “arms,”. Conversely, the Second, Seventh, and DC circuits have all held semi-automatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment, yet the bans were still justified by the governmental interest supposedly advanced in Kolbe. The 4th circuit includes MD, VA, WVA & the Carolinas.
Last edited:
Which has more clout: an enshrined amendment in our founding documents, or the changing opinions of some judges over time?
CJ4wd
Regular Member
Based on what we have seen the "authorities" do, not only with our laws but with (and to) the Bill of Rights, I don't believe that there is more than one Amendment of the first ten, the BoR, that have NOT been infringed in one way or another. The possible exception is the Third about quartering soldiers in people's homes W/O their consent.
Second only to the Second Amendment, the most violated of the BoR is the Tenth Amendment. It states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The federal (feral) government has grabbed SO much power that are SUPPOSED to be reserved to the States and the People, I question if it is even possible to get those rights and powers back where they belong. Ever.
I concur
Excellent thoughts and question!
So now, we have the possibility for our real situation (the actual ability to exercise those rights) to get better, stay roughly the same, or get worse.
And each of us has the opportunity this year to make a decision whether to influence this reality or not. Then, if the decision is yes, we have the opportunity to actually help choose the direction that government takes. If not, you have to just take what you get without having had a say.
I wouldn't go that far. I don't translate "even if you don't agree with everything" about a candidate, if you care about your 2A you need to vote for him, into what you just described. On the flip side, and in my opinion only, it's that line of thinking that has led us to this point.