• 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.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • 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.

Are second Amendment supporters a “Class of Persons”?

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Are second Amendment supporters a “Class of Persons”?

“The Right of the People”

The Second Amendment’s recognition of a “right” that belongs to “the people” indicates a right of individuals. The “people” are not a “State,” nor are they the “Militia.” The Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a “right” only to the “people.”

The phrase “the right of the people” appears two other times in the Bill of Rights. Both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth safeguards “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to “rights . . . retained by the people.” Therefore, the phrase in the Second Amendment plainly means as used in these other amendments.

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, recognized that the Constitution uses “the people,” and especially “the right of the people,” to refer to individuals:
“[T]he people” seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by “the People of the United States.” The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people.” See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 (“Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble”) (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 (“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”) (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (My bolding)
So, when “the people” appears in the phrase “the right of the people” in the Constitution, we must conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals or class of persons, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one’s person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

The question, are second Amendment supporters a “Class of Persons”? Well, according to the Supreme Court, yes they we are.

Your thoughts.
 

Firearms Iinstuctor

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
3,428
Location
northern wis
Doesn't matter one bit what the constitution says if the judges refuse to obey it.

The excuse of a "living constitution" has been the excuse pushed by the communist/socialist/progressives for decades.

Their goal is to destroy the constitution and country.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Doesn't matter one bit what the constitution says if the judges refuse to obey it.

The excuse of a "living constitution" has been the excuse pushed by the communist/socialist/progressives for decades.

Their goal is to destroy the constitution and country.
True, very true, but I try to impart information to all in the hopes it will tip the table in our favor, hoping a judge will honor their oath.

It's just a hope.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
strip absolute immunity from judges and replace it with qualified immunity and you will see judges following the law vs. fabricating/ignoring the law...but, you will need judges to implement these changes, and like cops, judges will not harm their fellow judges.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
While lacking the legal insight of others, some rudimentary peeling of the onion, reveals to me this massive immunity phenomenon is a late 20th manifestation for jurists, LEs, and others.

Part of my lack of understanding centers around what, if anything, precipitated, root cause if you will, this phenomenon in the first place, e.g., politics, permissiveness, development/establishment of ‘privilege’ mentality, or a flat out complete break down of public overseer consciousness, or a little combination of each or other complexities?

Additionally, memory being what it is, I must also profess I do not recall the numbers of reports of judicial misconduct or our nation’s citizens killed at the hands of our sworn protectors being so prolific.

As others have pointed out, until the good olde boy [union?] protection of each other ceases results in every one being held accountable for their infractions this will only keep getting worse.
 

hammer6

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2008
Messages
1,461
Location
Florida
Are second Amendment supporters a “Class of Persons”?

“The Right of the People”

The Second Amendment’s recognition of a “right” that belongs to “the people” indicates a right of individuals. The “people” are not a “State,” nor are they the “Militia.” The Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a “right” only to the “people.”

The phrase “the right of the people” appears two other times in the Bill of Rights. Both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The Fourth safeguards “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to “rights . . . retained by the people.” Therefore, the phrase in the Second Amendment plainly means as used in these other amendments.

The Supreme Court, in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 (1990), in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, recognized that the Constitution uses “the people,” and especially “the right of the people,” to refer to individuals:

So, when “the people” appears in the phrase “the right of the people” in the Constitution, we must conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals or class of persons, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one’s person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

The question, are second Amendment supporters a “Class of Persons”? Well, according to the Supreme Court, yes they we are.

Your thoughts.


Nice catch
 
Top