Justice Stevens' Dissent is attempt to Destroy Us Constitution

[Rifleman]

Coming as no surprise to [b]anyone, if you want to see an example of judical Activism and an outright power grab, then Justice Stevens' dissent to DC v. Heller is one of best you will find.

The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right". Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects a individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of the right.

Already, in the very first sentence Stevens has revealed his agenda, i.e., to negate the very individual right protected, or better "recognized" by the Second Amendment. Surely when any city council in the country, can enact an outright ban on firearms, or storage requirements with criminal penalties to ensure that they can't be legally used, there is effectively 'no right remaining. And that is Justice Stevens' agenda.

Neither the text of the Amendment, nor the arguments advanced by it's proponants evidenced the slightest interest in limiting the legislature's authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.

That is blatantly false and another step on the agenda. The text of the Amendment itself states: 'shall not be infringed.' The civilian use of firearms can be regulated short of "infringement." Thus, taking away the right from someone for criminal use, or due to mental incompetance, WITH DUE PROCESS, is not infringement. Likewise, the regulation of firearms due to safety concerns, or in certain public places in peacetime, is not infringement. A total ban on a type of firearm, or other regulation of firearms rendering them useless, or almost any ban on private property, is infringement. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist No, 29: By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. Clearly, '"the large body od citizens" to which Hamilton refers to could not be "little. if at all inferior" to the "select Militia Hamilton refers to, if private civilian use of firearms was legislated out of existance.

The preamble to the Second Amendment make three important points. It identifies the preservation of the militia as the Amendment's purpose; it explains that the militia is necessary to the security of the free State; and it recognizes that the militia must be well-regulated.

Look out, Stevens will now redefine every part of the Amendment in order to justify his leftist. socialist agenda. He will redefine the term "militia" not in it's current, legal or historical meaning, he will redefine it to mean "only" as a formal and legal organization, even more regulated by the government. Don't misunderstand, the government and legislature DO have authority over selct militias and the general citizenry, "when in Federal service". Stevens intends to ignore the "shall not be infringed" part.

It confirms that the Framer's single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee "to keep and bear arms" was on military use of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

Absolutely untrue. From Federalist No. 46: " Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Clearly, It assumes that the entire population will be armed, and the particular State government, which the people of that state have direct control over, as opposed to only three representative in the Federal Congress, and in the President will be sufficient to prevent a Federal takeover of the entire system and an end to liberty in the form that the European monarchies had done, that is to disarm the citizenry, because they couldn't trust them with arms. Unfortuantely, Justice Stevens and his ilk, now insult the free and galant citizens of the United States "with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors.' That is [b]exactly what Stevens and the ahtigun Democratic Party do, is to convince the people that they are unable to defend themselves, and thus must be subject to arbitrary powers. In addition, we are now be forced "to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it." which Stevens intends to legitimize.

And I won't quote it, but Stevens disects the phraze "to keep and bear arms" as well, and uses his special definition from the same dictionaries, only he leaves out the more common definition.

The Court's reliance on Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England is unpersuasive for the same reason as its reliance on the English Bill of Rights. Blackstone's invocation of "the natural right of resistance and self-preservation," ante, at 20. and "the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence," Ibid, referred specifically to Article VII of the English Bil of Rights. The excerpt from Blackstone offered by the Court, therefore, is like Article VII itself, of limited use in interpreting the very differently worded, and differently historically situated, Second Amendment.
What is important about Blackstone is the instruction he provided on readinf the sort of text before us today. Blackstone described an interpretive approach that gave far more wieght to preambles than the Court allows.
Counseling that "[t]he fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs the most natural and probable." Blackstone explained that "[i]f words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning from the context, with which it may be of singular use to compare a word or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate. Thus the preome or preamble is often called in to help the construction of an avt of Parliment."

Here Stevens rejects parts of Blackstone and cherrypicks the part he likes, ignoring the rules of construction in their order, and declaring ambiguity, he himself created by his reliance on 20th Century Court cases. Stevens has already redefined the word militia to mean a State Militia, instead of armed citizens. Stevens had already misquoted US v. Miller in order to limit arms to military weapons. You see, the Miller decision didn't involved bans it involved the payment of a tax. The sawed off shotgun wasn't considered "protected" from a federal tax because it was ruled "not to be a part of ordinary infantry equipment". Conversely, firearms a part of "ordinary infantry equipment couldn't even be taxed. An or no small significance, Miller wasn't a member of a State Militia. Clearly, Stevens had redefined words in the Second Amendment to satisfy his own agenda ignoring the simple meanings and then claiming that the context supports those twisted definitions. Clearly, Madiison and Hamilton meant for all the citizens to be armed, and the regulation of the legislature to be limited to that not being "infringement". The militia remains "well-regulated" due to the fact that every citizen remains armed.

[Rifleman]

Regarding Miller v. United States, I had stated that Justice Stevens has purposely mis-interpreted that case, and that is true. Miller v. United States has been misinterpreted so many times by anti-gun groups, that it has a percedence all of its own. Since I don't expect Flash, (Justice Stevens) to dae to comment here, I'll just show where Stevens did his dishonest and activist ruling:

From Steven's dissent:Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, "[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Miller US 307-178. The veiw of the Amendment we took in Miller-that it proptects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature's power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons-is both the most natural reading of the Amendment's text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.

Trouble is, Justice Stevens stopped in the text of Miller when it became clear, that was contrary to his (Steven's) pesonal interpretation:

From Miller v. United States: In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly 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.

As is clear, it was the weapon that was the basis of the decision, not the right, and therefore, Stevens is purposely overstating the case. Conversely, weapons that [b}could[/b] contribute to the common defense, or weapons that are ordinary military equipment would not be covered by "the Act", (i.e. The 1934 Gun Control Act).

Miller decision: The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia -- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

In this passage, the "militia" is clearly NOT the body that antifreedom people like Stevens envisions, a formal body also controlled exclusively by the government, but regular citizens.

More Miller: The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

What part of "all males" does Stevens NOT understand?

The Miller decision also quotes Blackstone, which Stevens and Flash, (if not the same person) demand and than reject when they disagree with it:

Blackstone's Commentaries, Vol. 2, Ch. 13, p. 409 points out "that king Alfred first settled a national militia in this kingdom," and traces the subsequent development and use of such forces.

Clearly, Miller was a bootlegger, not a "National Guardsman". The ruling in Miller involved a federal tax on a sawed off shotgun, not a draconian ban. Weapons that could be used to provide for the common defense, or are a part of ordinary infantry equipment are protected by the 2nd Amendment, and is clearly being misquoted by Falsh/Stevens.

[speaktothesky]

Rifle, you are wasting your time, just buy them now and ignore the law, just keep you mouth closed.

Marbury V. Madison also can be related to this as well, but what it the point?

[Rifleman]

speaktothesky wrote: Rifle, you are wasting your time, just buy them now and ignore the law, just keep you mouth closed.

Marbury V. Madison also can be related to this as well, but what it the point?

That's easy for you to say, and make no mistake, I am buying every gun I can, especially the ones most in jeapordy of being banned. Unfortunately, future generations will be slowly choked off, and in many ways, I have as well. Before 1968, a responsible person could have purchased 20mm rifles and ammunition. I wrote this thread with the iutent of tweaking Flash, who accuses Scalea of "cherrypicking" when Flash himself is the one actually doing it. Flash will probably ignore both the threads, including the Breyer one, as he ignores when questioned oh nis own topics. While persistant, he often pulls a "BUngaro" or an "Obama" as he pretends, when obviously proven wrong, that he meant something else all along. Anyway, the "point" is that I express my views. Miller v. United States has been misquoted for decades, by obviously biased courts. and antigun groups. Miller nor his attorney were present, during the arguments, and so the government got to present their case unopposed. And it was about a "tax" not a ban. More importantly, it illustrates the level of "contempt" many federal judges have for the US Constitution, our rule of law, and our freedoms. Something really needs to be done about the bias in the Judicial system. hat's why, and it's my time to waste.

[speaktothesky]

I understand that. No it is not easy for me to say, as I have very little income for such things.
As for 20mm, the book Unintended Consequences deals nicely with that fact.
Just one question for anyone... Has crime gone up or down since 1968?

[Rifleman]

Crime has actually gone down, since 1968, but just recently as Concealed Carry laws were enacted in the majority of States. The studies are true! More guns equals less crime.

[speaktothesky]

Thank you for seeing what I was showing, or attempting to show.

[Rifleman]

I am purposely ignoring Flash's other post, to give him no excuse to continue that ridiculous idea of his, namely, that "ambiguous language exists in law, therefore the interpretation of Justice Scalea concerning the 2nd Amendment is wrong." And of course I am summing up, paraphrasing, and stating his case specifically, because he can't do any of that and argue the premise. So anyway, I am puting this retort into the Justice Sevens thread because that is where it makes the next best fit.

Even Justice Stevens didn't argue that the wordage of the Amendment was ambiguous, he simply insisted upon a more restrictive definition. That's the Brady and BUngaro crowd, that makes those claims. You see, when it comes down to it, even if the language were to be ambiguous, the probability of the 2nd Amendment actually protecting the right of Americans to own about any gun they desire and can afford. This has been Flash's strategy all along, to "muddy the waters", and then attempt to insert his personal interpretation. As I have pointed out, much of his tactics involve hiding the actual sources, and assuming we are too lazy toactually look them up. Even then, I'm not going to buy a certain source, just to show Flash wrong, so I revealed his little scam form sourcing Webster's Dictionary. The definition of the word "ARMS" from Webster's Dictionary and Justice Scalea's interpretation proved to be correct. It was never ambiguous, and none of the other Justices claimed arms meaning was ambiguous.

Anyway, back to Stevens dissent: As I have already stated in rhis thread, Stevens never claimed the Ammendment to be ambiguous, he tried to narrowly define the "right to keep and bear arms" as having an exclusive meaning, which would justify upholding the DC gun ban. If that was the standard for every "right of the people", then no right would be safe, and actually, that is the case for the rights the democrats don't happen to like, or for groups they politically oppose. If you narrow the first ammendment's "freedom of religion", to adults and personal, you have the current situation where public religious practices are being banned, If you narrow "free speech" to personal feelings, and beliefs, then you can control what is said on mass media, the radiom and the internet. In each of these cases, the right is narrowed to benefit a particular pollitical view.

[speaktothesky]

Impeach the fool!

[Flash The Cash]

I believe you will agree with me that the most difficult problem that arises as we attempt to fairly and objectively ascertain the will of the legislative bodies that made the Second Amendment, is the fact that they deliberately constructed it to contains two part that don't coincide. That is to say, the meaning of "well regulated militia" in the first clause, doesn't coincide with the meaning of "people" in the second clause.

The meaning of the word "people" includes more, much more, than the people in the "well regulated militia."

In 1789, there were rules of legal interpretation that had be established by case law. These rules were universally accepted as the only legitimate method of interpreting a constitution or any other legal instrument.

There was a rule of construction that applied to legal expressions that contains parts that didn't coincide. The rule was,

...that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.

The Second Amendment treats "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as merely a means to the intermediate end of "a well regulated militia." "A well regulated militia" in turn is merely a means to final object of
"the security of a free state."

Applying the sacrifice rule, we must sacrifice the meaning of "people" to the meaning of "well regulated militia. Thus, we should understand the Second Amendment's second clause to mean "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

[jtdc]

In 1789, there were rules of legal interpretation that had be established by case law. These rules were universally accepted as the only legitimate method of interpreting a constitution or any other legal instrument.

That approach is that the Founders owned the country. And only they could make the rules. In fact, they knew that changes would have to me made. So in the original Constitution they included Article 5 which set out procedure for modifying what they originally conceived.

The Bill Of Rights, which was the first amendment they added to their original work, made it clear that the government was to be subservient to the People.

"A well regulated militia" in turn is merely a means to final object of
"the security of a free state."

The formation of this country was a rebellion against a tyrannical king. The founders knew that the only reason they were able to break free from that tyranny was because the People had arms. Keep in mind that the first ten Amendments deal with the People's rights, which the 10th Amendment defines where the federal powers end. With that in mind the Second Amendment's "the right of the people" trumps the governments powers. The militia is made up of people who's job it is to protect the people. Not for the protection of the government.

Applying the sacrifice rule, we must sacrifice the meaning of "people" to the meaning of "well regulated militia.

the answer is simple. Just don't apply the "sacrifice rule"!

[Flash The Cash]

Originally Posted by jtdc

That approach is that the Founders owned the country. And only they could make the rules. In fact, they knew that changes would have to me made. So in the original Constitution they included Article 5 which set out procedure for modifying what they originally conceived.

My method of interpreting the Constitution is to ascertain the will of the men who made it by exploring the most natural and probable signs of their will, which are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

[Spike]

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

My method of interpreting the Constitution is to ascertain the will of the men who made it by exploring the most natural and probable signs of their will, which are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

Got it! Retroactive mind-reading!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

My method of interpreting the Constitution is to ascertain the will of the men who made it by exploring the most natural and probable signs of their will, which are either the words, the context, the subject matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law.

The men who "made it" were not dictators. What they created was a foundation for the "People" to build on. The founders did not own the country.

Your "method of interpreting" is not the method used by most of "The People" nor of the courts. Pardon me if I don't empower you with anymore than you individual opinion.

[Flash The Cash]

Originally Posted by jtdc

...the Second Amendment's "the right of the people" trumps the governments powers.

According to the greatest legal mind in Virginia during the early days of the Republic, Saint George Tucker, the object of the Second Amendment was to "completely" remove "all room for doubt" "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

According to the greatest legal mind in Virginia during the early days of the Republic, Saint George Tucker, the object of the Second Amendment was to "completely" remove "all room for doubt" "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same."

Well he certainly missed the mark there. It seems to not have removed any doubt about what its intent was. So it's only one man's opinion, sort of like yours.

[Flash The Cash]

Originally Posted by jtdc

The Bill Of Rights...made it clear that the government was to be subservient to the People.

The Bill of Rights doesn't say the government was to be subservient to the People.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

The Bill of Rights doesn't say the government was to be subservient to the People.

A rather deceitful tactic. That is like saying the Second Amendment says nothing about freedom of speech.

The Declaration Of Independence says:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, having its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The Constitution gives the method for making the government subservient to the people.

[Flash The Cash]

Originally Posted by jtdc

The formation of this country was a rebellion against a tyrannical king.

This country was settled with the authority of the King. Read the Colonial Charters.

...the only reason they were able to break free from that tyranny was because the People had arms.

I thought it was because the French won the war for us.

the first ten Amendments deal with the People's rights

So do some don't. What right does the First Amendment's establishment clause deal with?

the 10th Amendment defines where the federal powers end.

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively, or to the people, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States. The Second Amendment, according to the foremost exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism, made it clear that,

each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

This country was settled with the authority of the King. Read the Colonial Charters.

Oh, so he is the one who authorized the Declaration Of Independence? I guess it was under his authority that Christopher Columbus discovered this continent? And his authority over the native American Indians was what? Oh yeah, he had a more powerful military.

What a jerk you are!

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

I thought it was because the French won the war for us.

Oh, so the Colonists just sat back and let the French duke it out on our behalf?

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

What right does the First Amendment's establishment clause deal with?

Changing the topic, huh?

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

The Tenth Amendment reserves to the States respectively, or to the people, powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States.

You make my point!

Originally Posted by Flash The Cash

The Second Amendment, according to the foremost exponent of Jeffersonian Republicanism, made it clear that,

each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same.

Of course, in spite of the individual opinions of the signers, the Constitution was a compromise of the many opinions. So no prize there either.