Because back then people knew what a prefactory clause and an operative clause were and would realize what the sentence meant and not get all turned around like you have.
Akhil is a close friend of mine-a status that has existed since we both were at Yale over 30 years ago and we recently met both at my 35th reunion and when he came to cincinnati to appear at our Yale club meeting here. But what Akhil has never really tried to explain (but which he knows) is that the commerce clause was a fraudulent vehicle for claiming that the federal government had any power to control guns. And he said people should have the right to keep and bear arms in their own homes whether or not a second amendment exists the federal government was never ever given any power in the constitution to have ANYTHING to do with the arms private citizens owned. since he fixates on 18th century views, he needs to understand that no one back then thought the new government had any power in this area.
I have never been able to understand of what value does firearms only in the home serve, so one is unarmed when outside the home, where one is also very likely to be attacked. ******************************************** Cesare Beccaria; "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "
It really doesn't matter how you constructed the second amendment, firearms and all arms since the country was "constituted", regulated weapons. Whether you are part of a militia, an individual at home, a hunter or a private individual, the type and place you can carry or use a firearm has ALWAYS been regulated. Even recently where AR15 assault weapon had specific regulations placed on it in Connecticut and NY and were challenged, the Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge and the stricter regulation was upheld. Because the biggest fear of terroism is not organized terrorism but "lone wolf" terroism by home grown individuals regardless of motivation, gun regulation and regulation of all weapons or explosives in general will be a necessary part of our domestic defense.
Your gun obsession is noted and less than worthless. If the founders were more clear the new "right to carry" would not now exist. The Scotus was bought by the NRA. - - - Updated - - - Says the grammar nazi. Got any real reaasons?
NRA cannot do any such thing. You and your Unicorn live in a Fantasy World. It must really burn you up that Americans can carry concealed handguns, and you lot that invented the concept are reduced to bunched up panties, lol........
The SC only ruled that individual ownership of guns was lawful in 2008 with Heller. Prior to that there was no such right.
Then why did the case US v Miller not specify in explicit terms that such was the case? Why did they go out of their way to state that the second amendment applied only to firearms that are in common use at the time, rather than stating that Miller had no standing to challenge his conviction, because he had no constitutional right to own a firearm at all?
That he had no standing to challenge his conviction, because he had no constitutional right to own a firearm was not the ruling. The case was about having a Shotgun with a 12" barrel without a tax stamp. The ruling was narrow, based on whether a 12" shotgun was a gun in common use and suitable for militia use, the criteria they were ruling on and did not address the broader issue of the 2nd Amendment.
Hey coming from a guy whose parents had been disarmed by the British and who grew up in San Francisco, that's a pretty good concession on his part
I think we are in the Aesop'f famous Fox of Fable zone. Misery craves company. - - - Updated - - - MIller was up there with Roe v Wade in bs reasoning and outcome based idiocy. but it isn't nearly as anti gun as the anti gun movement thinks it is
Not only isn't it as Anti gun as the anti gun movement thinks it is, but it opened the door for citizens owning military grade weapons... From the Heller vs DC Dicta.... Heller vs DC wasn't an exhaustive review of the 2A as Scalia indicated in his Dicta, but this statement in the Dicta associated with the Heller vs DC ruling commenting on Miller vs DC left that question on the table for a future date, but is an interesting read on Miller vs DC.
Really? You have a right to a firearm for self-defense inside the home.... but not outside? Who among the people who founded our country believed this? Please provide quotations and citations. - - - Updated - - - What ruling from the SCotUS did Heller overturn? - - - Updated - - - True. And note: The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon. Not the militia, not the citizen in the militia, but the citizen.
Actually, That is not a true statement, since no Court has the expertise to determine the suitability of ANY WEAPON or firearm for the General Defense of ANY entity, Public, Private, Military, or Civilian, Law Enforcement or Security or the Militia, They can only Question whether or not if a weapon or firearm has been used in such a capacity.
The question is not suitability, but a reasonable relationship. If, for instance, someone demonstratives to the court that the M16 is the basic issue rifle of the army, they demonstrate that reasonable relationship. The point of my post, however, was to show that the court, in Miller, spoke directly to the right of the individual without regard to his relationship to the militia.
Unfortunately, Miller vs US ruled on the 12" shotgun in ignorance since, because Miller had dies, the defense did not appear to counter the arguement that short barrel shotguns were not common for militia or military use...
And yet the supreme court did not find that Miller had no standing because he was not a member of an organized militia. The fact that there was standing for the case to proceed means there was indeed an individual right for firearms ownership before Heller was ever argued.
we get these screwy court decisions because the courts are trying to balance something that should never exist. that being the power of the federal government to limit what sort of arms private citizens could own
There is a Dangerous unchallenged legal precedent right there, if Firearms regulation is delegated under the Authority of the States, then it is not Constitutional that the Federal Government should have any Authority over Interstate sales or transactions that should be controlled under State authority only.
Better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia is what we always need. Varus would be famous, instead of infamous, if he had stuck to that simple rule; especially, before implementing a Tax.
