How US gun culture compares with the world

smart people realize how Cornell actually undercuts his argument. He pretends that there was a federal power because there was state power when in reality, the existence of state power to regulate firearms use was exactly a reason why the founders did NOT GIVE the federal government any such power. It would be superfluous. BTW Cornell is a paid stooge of the joyce foundation and he never ever explains where the federal government was actually intended to have any gun control power. He ignores that because he would be forced to pretend that the expansion of the commerce clause was what the founders intended.

he also pretends that state courts somehow should control federal courts.

 

Well, there are paid stooges, and just regular old stooges.

Lets start with, "the fact that all the justices rejected the militia interpretation". Show me where the dissenting argument included a rejection of the militia interpretation. A copy of the actual argument.

 

http://constitution.org/lrev/roots/death_collective_right_theory.pdf

pretty well takes Cornell apart (Cornell does not hold a law degree btw)

This article predicts that the collective right theory of the Second Amendment will not survive. It examines the collective right theory and the brief history of its rise to relative prominence in legal thought and policy. Next, this article delves into claims made by collective right proponents in the academy and exposes them as untenable. Finally, it concludes that the theory is unrealistic, ideologically driven, and too poorly explained by its own adherents to justify its continued existence in American jurisprudence.

 

Is this the author of that?

Roger I. Roots, J.D., Ph.D. Attorney at Law
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice Jarvis Christian College
P.O.B. 1623
Hawkins, Texas 75765
(406) 224-1135

 

I already cited this to you and you apparently couldn't understand it so I will school you again

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.denning.pdf

Because it attracted relatively little comment, it is worth emphasizing at the outset that in Heller the Court unanimously interred the old “collective” right interpretation of the Second Amendment, which read the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteeing only a state’s right to maintain and arm a militia free from some federal control.11 Justice Stevens, for example, begins his opinion rejecting the “collective” versus “individual” rights dichotomy, writing that the Second Amendment “urely . . . protects a right that can be enforced by individuals” and switching the debate to one over “the scope of that right.”12 Justice Breyer seemed willing to go a little further, recognizing that the Amendment—in part—was intended “to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”13

 

Because it attracted relatively little comment, it is worth emphasizing at the outset that in Heller the Court unanimously interred the old “collective” right interpretation of the Second Amendment, which read the right to keep and bear arms as guaranteeing only a state’s right to maintain and arm a militia free from some federal control.11 Justice Stevens, for example, begins his opinion rejecting the “collective” versus “individual” rights dichotomy, writing that the Second Amendment “urely . . . protects a right that can be enforced by individuals” and switching the debate to one over “the scope of that right.”12 Justice Breyer seemed willing to go a little further, recognizing that the Amendment—in part—was intended “to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense.”13

I wil repeat it again just so there is no confusion that it says what it does: I am awaiting someone who didn't understand this article earlier to be googling in order to try to find a response.

 

well its been forty minutes with no response. I guess I will call it a night and note that one can google all they want and they aren't going to find any evidence of the "militia only" nonsense.

 

Yes, but.......


"On this point at least, Heller represented a welcome advance in the debate—at least to anyone who slogged through the academic equivalent of trench warfare between individualists and collectivists that played out in law review articles during the 1990s.

The locus of disagreement in Heller was the scope of the individual right. Here there was still plenty of room for disagreement. On this point, the majority, rather than the dissent, tended to track public opinion in concluding that the Second Amendment was not intended to guarantee the right to keep and bear arms in a military context only; rather, it “guarantee[d] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.”14

....................................snip......................................

The majority’s robust reading of the Amendment’s individual right stands in contrast to either Justice Stevens’s or Justice Breyer’s much narrower conception. Justice Stevens devoted nearly all of his opinion to sketching an alternative historical account of the Amendment’s origin and scope. In the end, though, it is unclear what work his conclusion—that the right can be exercised only in connection with military services—would do in most cases. "

http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/04/69.4.denning.pdf

 

Well of course it isn't nonsense. It has been argued as being connected to military service, as well as other ways, for well over a hundred years.

 

Not at all so straight forward as a certain poster here would have some believe.



"Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not.

I

The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern.

The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.

In respect to the first independent reason, I agree with Justice Stevens, and I join his opinion. In this opinion I shall focus upon the second reason. I shall show that the District’s law is consistent with the Second Amendment even if that Amendment is interpreted as protecting a wholly separate interest in individual self-defense. That is so because the District’s regulation, which focuses upon the presence of handguns in high-crime urban areas, represents a permissible legislative response to a serious, indeed life-threatening, problem.

Thus I here assume that one objective (but, as the majority concedes, ante, at 26, not the primary objective) of those who wrote the Second Amendment was to help assure citizens that they would have arms available for purposes of self-defense. Even so, a legislature could reasonably conclude that the law will advance goals of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime. The law is tailored to the urban crime problem in that it is local in scope and thus affects only a geographic area both limited in size and entirely urban; the law concerns handguns, which are specially linked to urban gun deaths and injuries, and which are the overwhelmingly favorite weapon of armed criminals; and at the same time, the law imposes a burden upon gun owners that seems proportionately no greater than restrictions in existence at the time the Second Amendment was adopted. In these circumstances, the District’s law falls within the zone that the Second Amendment leaves open to regulation by legislatures.

II

The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

(2) As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted “[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of [militia] forces.” United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, Second Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. See Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U. S. 275, 281–282 (1897) ; ante, at 22, 54 (opinion of the Court)."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

 

I think we now know why the turtle couldn't answer: Lets start with, "the fact that all the justices rejected the militia interpretation". Show me where the dissenting argument included a rejection of the militia interpretation. A copy of the actual argument.

The fact is they didn't reject the militia interpretation.

 

Here's Breyer's dissent:

" The Second Amendment says that: “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.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD1.html

" 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 theSecond Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

US v Cruikshank is why is doesn't matter.

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence".

 

Thanks to the Nanny Staters, you are correct. They want to limit all of our rights...for our "own good", of course.

 

Correct, but "the militia" isn't the National Guard as so many LW anti-gunners wants us to believe. It was all the men folk in the village.

 

Rucker, It's right here: "Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting.

We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment . The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that Amendment. In my view, it does not."



The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by Justice Stevens—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th-century citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern."

 

Amazing how they both held that it protected an individual right in one phrase then revert to a the collective view later. Almost as if they really did t know what they were talking about.

Here's how that states have felt about standard vs collective view: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

Cruikshank still holds, too.

 

There's an answer for that I believe. They are saying it's individual as opposed to collective, but it's a matter of degree. This from your quote: "" 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 theSecond Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."

 

Well, if you ignore the "shall not be infringed part", which seems fairly unequivocal. Since ratification we've seen various SCOTUS decisions that have further "refined" what infringements are allowed, and currently, after Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano, it's "weapons useful for a militia" are protected, as are "weapons in common use for lawful purposes". At least one lower court has created "most useful for the military" to allow restrictions, but what weapon wouldn't be most useful for the military as compared to its civilian use? The courts in Shew v Malloy and Kolbe v Hogan were especially creative in getting around the acknowledged protections of the four SCOTUS decisions listed earlier.

 

Post a racist statement I have made. And it is true for TD

 

well when someone pretends there is no individual right, its obvious his goal is to try to ban guns

 

its a waste of time actually responding to someone who refuses to even read articles posted to him and then is afraid to back up his own posts. You made the specious claim that you could fill a symphony hall with law professors who claim that the second amendment only recognizes the power of states to create a militia and has no individual right protected in the amendment. You made no effort to prove that idiotic assertion. Then when I posted law review articles that clearly show that the militia only nonsense is dead, you pretended that I didn't supply any information. 6gunner is right. Your posts are nothing more than contrarian nonsense and your obvious goal is to harass and ridicule those of us who support what the founders intended. You don't even attempt to pretend your silly position is about crime control. You obviously have some personal issue with legal gun owners that cause this sort of stupid baiting

 

I did. Twice. Scroll up.

 

You choose to be wrong.
The SCotUS says so.

 

that's why several law review articles lampooned the obvious disingenuous nature of Steven's poorly reasoned argument

 

when vegas gets beaten in an argument, his tactic is to emulate a squid. A squid that is losing, defecates in the water: the stuff is commonly called ink and it lets the squid escape by clouding up the environment. Vegas's ink are nonsensical lies of calling the people who are destroying his nonsense-"racists" or gun banners