Justus For All

It would be nice if the Supremes finally rule for the 2nd as an individual right. If they’ll wrap it into the 14th amendment (due process), that should remove much of the baning agenda, and much of the gun control crowd that polarizes many in the GOP.

This might just be the case that gives the 2nd amendment some legal teeth for its future.

So where has the ACLU been since 1976? I thought they were supposed to be protecting our civil liberties?

Well, the ACLU picks the types of causes it will represent. It probably didn’t exist in the 1930’s.

Remember, much of the argument for the 2nd Amendment being a ‘collective right’ comes from the Miller case.

A case mind you, where Miller (and respresentation) was not present. With no defense present on the case, is it any wonder that the decision is convoluted?

The Supreme Court will be revisting the issue. It will probably find the 2nd Amendment is what is says.

As states do have the right to regulate their own militias, the question will be, how will the courts define ‘reasonable’ with regards to limitations?

Wrapping the 2nd into the 14th (Common in the 19th century) elinates the banning of firearms outright, therefore limiting what states can do in restricting an individual’s exercising of their rights.

I might add, if one were really interested in understanding more about the legal issues with regards to the 2nd amendment, pick up a copy of “Second Amendment Primer.”

I can sit back, comfortable in the knowledge that I know exactly what I am allowed to do if I had the desire or need to own a weapon.

It strikes me that these SCOTUS actions on Second Amendment come around with monotonous regularity, and that likely someone’s income needed a boost…

Ahhh, cynicism…..

No Dave, I am NOT going to debate Second Amendment - you are quite welcome to it. I have no need of it.

Scott,

While I agree with you that this is how the case should be decided, for most of us it won’t have a major effect on gun regulations, since I believe 40 state constitutions already have gun ownership as an individual right, and also since I agree that the court will likely adopt a fairly lax standard on ‘reasonable regulations’ I expect that few state laws will be effected.

I think the political dynamics are going to have a bigger effect then the actual regulatory changes, as is often the case.

Probligo,

I am not sure what you mean by ‘frequent’ as the court hasn’t revisted the core meaning of the second ammendment since the 30s. In any event, if you are happy with your status as a subject rather then a sovreign I suppose I am pleased for you. I wouldn’t care for such a thing myself, but then to each his own.

Dave,

Absolutely correct. For the majority of states, whether the 2nd Amendment is a collective, or an individual right with regards to regulations, the decision will have little effect.

As I live in California which has no state 2nd, and where the 9th circuit considers the Federal 2nd Amendment to be a privillege, CA for instance would no longer be able to work towards total disarmament of the public.

(The CA legislature introduces the banning of all semi-autos for instance every year, though at this point has not gotten any traction.)

A positive ruling will change dramatically how the issue is considered in terms of crafting law for CA, and perhaps others.

What is determined ‘reasonable’ will be of question, and probably will generate much deliberation. Much as 1st amendment cases in the 19th century after it was incorporated into the 14th.

I do concur that this will have a bigger effect on the body politic, as it has been used as a wedge issue for quite some time, and by both sides. Remove it, or lessen its impact, and there will be a shift in politics.

“…as a subject rather then a sovreign…”

Dave, what the F*** does that mean? Does it mean that you are a queen? Does it mean that I am the idea of a sentence?

Do you imply that I have less freedom than do you? Please explain that one as I would strongly contend the opposite.

Dave,

BTW - It’s 44 States that have the 2nd incorporated into their state constitutions.

The case is really more relevant with regards to Federal law and judicial review.

Federal law superceeds state law.

Hense, if the Supremes call it an individual right with due process (14th) in mind, no longer will Senators be able to call for banning firarms.

Banning semi-autos for instance, banning assualt weapons for instance, and other laws would be off the table (and potentially overturned in states that restrict/ban them already).

So Dave, this is why this case is so important for those who support gun rights, and why those who do not, are afraid.

Probligo
subject: being under the power or sovereignty of another or others; “subject peoples”; “a dependent prince”

sovereign: One that exercises supreme, permanent authority, especially in a nation or other governmental unit

In America, the people are sovereign.

And yes, you do have less freedom. You do not have the freedom to provide for your own defense. That you don’t care is perhaps sadder then that you don’t have it.

One thing I note about the CNN story:

“The city reported 137 gun-related murders last year.”

And so we have the mayor saying the ban keeps the city safe, which begs the question: What is the _trend_ for gun-related murders in the city, and what are other factors that might be part of the equation.

That provides a much clearer picture as to how effective a gun ban is than the simplistic number quoted above.

Not taking a stance either way, mind you, just that I’m more interested in the big picture, rather than a small portion of it.

I can guarantee one thing - a criminal will think twice if he/she knows that every citizen:

* Carries a firearm
* Knows how to use it
* Isn’t afraid to use it to stop a crime

“You do not have the freedom to provide for your own defense. That you don’t care is perhaps sadder then that you don’t have it.”

Dave, your sense of humour really is quite strange.

In my mind I can just imagine you answering that unexpected knock at the front door with machine carbine in hand, or your favourite flavour in hand gun if you wish, and a voice with the kind of snarl affected by the gent who presents “Great Weapons of War” (or whatever it is called) on Discovery. Real friendly like. I will continue my present practice of opening the door with a smile and a friendly greeting - because that is the person I am and nothing whatever to do with my right to bear arms.

What is truly sad is that there is a part of this debate that Americans (not just you) seem totally incapable of grasping.

It is not a case of “no freedom”. I can, if there is the need, defend myself and family. I can do that satisfactorily within the existing laws of the country. I can own a gun; I can own many guns if I wish.

The hard part for Americans to understand is -

I choose not to own a gun.

I do not NEED a gun.

Let’s just do a reality check here.

Who am I going to “defend” against? Is it against my own government? There you may have a point – but just watch for next October when the really big guns will be out – in the form of cardboard boxes full of pieces of paper. If anyone is in need of “defence” in this country at the moment it would be Auntie Helen and her scurvy lot rather than me or any other voter. Take a read of the series of “NZ has Terrorists” that I wrote. Are you proposing that the people of Ruatoki should have been shooting at the Police when the raids to “arrest” Tame Iti took place? Did the Branch Davidian sect shoot at the FBI at Waco Tx?

What is it that is such a threat to my (non-existent?) freedoms that I need to defend myself and my family; invasion by swarms of invading Australians? They do that every second year for a rugby match or three; invasion by the yellow hordes out of China? There are quite a few emigrating here – have been over the past ten years – quite legally. Most of them are nice people too. One family has been invited to my 60th party next week. Should I be afraid that they are terrorists?

Let’s do another reality check.

I can own any weapon that I would feel confident of using to effect. At that point the realism kicks in again and reminds me that any “defense” that I might have against an invading army is likely to be little more than a futile gesture. A rifle is of no use against bombers at 30,000 ft; a pistol might dent the outside of a helicopter at 50ft but accuracy over 200ft is problematical. My greatest chances for survival should NZ be invaded from outside is the experience gained (my God!!) 40 years ago on survival in the bush and self-sufficiency.

So, I have this picture in my mind of the Justus leaping into his well-armoured Hummer (general Iraq issue standard) and galloping off down the road; then jumping into his F25 Raptor and taking off to deal death to the invading bombers from Chavez’s Columbia and their loads of cocaine – oopps sorry - chemical weapons.

And you feel sorry for me? Dave, enjoy your paranoia. I know you prefer to sleep with your gun under the pillow.

Probligo: There is no reason for you to own firearms if you feel you don’t need one. That’s fine with me. I have no problem with those who choose not to use their rights.

Whether you’ve never been victimized, or ever thought that it could happen to you, or just find the scenario unlikely, that’s your prerogative. I hope you never find out the hard way.

Often, those in the self-defense community find many like yourself, who mistakenly think the police are here to protect you, or are required to even show up. It is a delusional thought, yet many seem to think others must save them, or are required to come to their aid.

The police are not required to show up, and often are delayed. Nor can they be held liable if they choose not to come. You’re life is your responsibility.

Just don’t choose to limit my 2nd amendment use, or my ability to protect my family. That’s all I’ve ever asked. Nor ask for one of my guns should a tornado, earthquake, hurricane, or other calamities make you or your family vulnerable to crime.

Scott, nowhere, in anything I have said, have I argued against the Second. Quite frankly America is welcome to it.

probligo: That is true, you’ve never expressed the sentiment of arguing against the 2nd Amendment. I stand corrected. Do understand, most of us who own firearms are not the pick-up truck redneck type. Most are not paranoid, only conscious of the fact that in the US, one must be self-reliant over dependent on others for self protection

I notice you are from Australia. Population of Northern California spread out across the land mass size of the US. Been there, have relatives in Sidney. Nice place to vacation. Love the Blue Mountains. Cautious about any snakes I see.

You have different politics, a different culture, and far less crime than we do in the US. A higher suicide rate mind you, but half the homicide rate. I would gather, that unless you lived in a rural area, engaged in hunting, there is little need for a firearm in Australia.

Scott,

Thanks.

Actually, I am not in Australia. In fact I am some 1600km east of there. Sheep jokes are tolerated, but only because there are getting to be more cows now than sheep.

FYI there has been an increase in Aussie suicide rate. The biggest part of the increase is (I believe) among the drought affected farming communities in the west Qld, west NSW and north Vic. Five years without water dries everything.

Oh, yeah. They have firearms in Aussie too. They need them esp in Qld and NT as protection against salties and toads.

Final nitpick - it is Sydney. Sidney is a bloke I know down at the pub. And he just HATES being called Side-ney