2nd Amendment Victory

[av8torntn]

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.


"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
--Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution with (his note added), 1776. Papers, 1:353

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803


"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants…” — Thomas Jefferson in “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"
- Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
- James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"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 crime."
- Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson

"As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to his teenaged nephew

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787

 

[Jagger]

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
--Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

When was that statement added to the Constitution?

 

[Jagger]

Scalia’s methodology of Constitutional interpretation is dictated by the outcome he desires. He decides what he wants a word, term, phrase or clause to mean, finds a source that defines or uses the language in a way that squares with his desired outcome and then applies whatever rule of construction takes him to that source.

For example:

When interpreting the phrase “right of the people”, in D. C. v. Heller, Scalia ignores the “normal and ordinary meaning” of the words comprising the phrase, and instead relies exclusively on the context of the phrase. That is to say, he considers nothing but the way the phrase, and the word “people” is used in other parts of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Recall that Scalia in the preceding paragraph, said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases as they were used in their "normal and ordinary meaning" by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Scalia said nothing whatsoever about establishing their meaning from the context.

However, when interpreting the word “arms”, Scalia ignores the context and the "normal and ordinary use" and relies on the way the word was used in a passage from Alexander Pope’s translation of Homer’s Iliad and by Timothy Cunningham in a passage from A new and complete Law Dictionary. Again, recall that Scalia said he was going to construe the Constitution’s words and phrases according to their "normal and ordinary" use by "ordinary citizens of the founding generation." Homer and Timothy Cunningham weren’t ordinary American citizens of the founding generation.

Scalia doesn't even follow his own espoused principle of construction. He uses whatever rule of construction will produce the meaning he wants.

 

[av8torntn]

When was that statement added to the Constitution?

You might want to re read the quote he does not say that.

 

[tourists24]

The methodology of interpretation used by Justice Antonin Scalia in the Heller opinion is probably not that which the lawmakers intended for him to use. Scalia states that he will interpret the text of the Second Amendment according to the "normal and ordinary" meanings that would been given it by "ordinary citizens in the founding generation."

Anyone knowledgeable of the common law in America in the late 1700's knows that it was well established law that the goal or object of interpreting laws was "the will of the legislator", not the understanding of "ordinary citizens." (See Blackstone's commentary on the "interpretation of laws" in his famous Commentaries on the Laws of England.)

Thomas Jefferson was a lawyer and would have known what the object of interpreting a law was when the Second Amendment was made. He was preaching it in 1812 to the Governor of Virginia.

The... maxims of the bench, to seek the will of the legislator and his words only, are proper... for judicial government.

--Thomas Jefferson to James Barbour, 1812. ME 13:128
​

Are you against allowing individuals owning firearms? Or are you really in support of governments telling us whether we can have them or not? Or could it be both?

 

[Jagger]

Are you against allowing individuals owning firearms?

I don't interpret laws according to my personal opinions.

 

[tourists24]

I don't interpret laws according to my personal opinions.

Maybe not, but if you are interpreting the bill of rights as not being for the individual's protection by limiting the powers of government, can I deduce that you feel that the minority opinion was done in strict adherence to what the constitution means? In this case being a government can prevent people from being armed if it deems necessary.

 

[tieguy]

Someone correct me if I am wrong.
D.C. had some of the strongest gun control laws in the nation, but it also had one of the highest rate of gun violence in the nation.
It seems gun prohibition only serves those who are willing to break the law.

It worked on the few honest citizens of DC.

Realistically Gun control won't work unless all states ban them. Too many DCers can go to other states and buy all they need.

Realistically you would have to live in a militaristic country with sealed borders to have any hope of controlling the flow of guns.

Even then it would take a while to clean up the existing supply.

Gun control is therefore an exercise in futility.

jmho

 

[Overpaid Union Thug]

Why do people keep trying to blame guns for when PEOPLE use them? Yeah.....watch out for those naughty little evil guns. They get a little antsy from time to time if they haven't been fired lately and tend to get up on their own and go on a shooting rampage. We should just totally ban them all. No wait...just destroy them all. That will put a stop to them shooting people all by themselves. Guns are evil!

 

[Jagger]

In D. C. v. Heller, Scalia says the text of the Second Amendment should be understood as the voters understood it, then he rewrites the Amendment, not according to the understanding of the voters, but according to the understanding of Joel Tiffany.

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the
principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood
by the voters; its words and phrases were used in
their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical
meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731
(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824).
Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic
meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that
would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the
founding generation.....

.....The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two
parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The
former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather
announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,
“Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep
and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See §585,
p. 394 (1867) J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law​

Joel Tiffany wasn't even a voter of the founding generation. However, he did subscribe to my view that the meaning of the constitution must be ascertained by the application of such rules of interpretation as existent at the time the constitution was framed and adopted. (See section 125 of Tiffany's A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law at the link provided below) Scalia's own authority on the meaning of the Second Amendment rejects Scalia's principle in favor of mine.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA65,M1