The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure
- Thread starter nortatoga
- Start date
kev74
20×102mm Vulcan
Somebody call that guy a whaaaaambulance!
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
This looney idiosyncratic kook may be slipping since he forgot he already gave this letter to the NYT after the Stoneman Douglas shooting. (The Atlantic may also just be "borrowing" the old NYT exclusive) If Stevens lives long enough, without going full vegetable, he will flip flop like he has on most of his dissenting opinions (e.g. affirmative action, flag burning, etc). He may be about ready to fully check out ... since the "Chief Justice of the Liberal Supreme Court" recently ranted that Gore v. Bush was without a doubt the Court's worst decision of his tenure.
Last edited:
@Steal2B Are you talking about this article in the NYT's ?
Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
Opinion | John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
@thewheels
.308 Win
I can't even finish it. It's beyond frustrating.
Just another corruptocrat.
Just another corruptocrat.
Deplorable Me
.700 Nitro Express
To date the Second Amendment has pretty much prevented most mass murders by government in the United States of those citizens keeping their firearms.
Mr. terzmo
.308 Win
That @$$hole is only grasping half . A well regulated militia..he understands...the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms doesn't seem to sink in....plus that goofy will not be infringed thing. The Constitution approves of a "well regulated militia" and the RIGHT for the people to keep and bear arms..... This @$$hole is another college grad?
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
They are getting worried that the NY city handgun law will be overturned by SCOTUS.... Main reason for this article .... Make no mistake folks ...
masterswimmer
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Awwwwwwwww
And my dismay comes from the worst Supreme Court Justice appointment. Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Abraham Lincoln.
And my dismay comes from the worst Supreme Court Justice appointment. Ruth Bader Ginsburg by Abraham Lincoln.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That judge is correct on his statement. It was the worst decision ever. The Heller ruling made clear there is a space in the Second Amendment for gun control laws. It was an oxymoron. How can you rule that certain gun control is kosher and at the same time say that the militia is composed of the people. What good is a militia with guns that don't match the average infantry foot soldier's guns or the police's elite team's guns?
Last edited:
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
@Willjr75 what about first amendment exceptions like "fighting words?"
May be beating a dead horse. I get that there's no "shall not be infringed" in the first.
May be beating a dead horse. I get that there's no "shall not be infringed" in the first.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Not sure I'm understanding the question. If the question is " Is free speech unlimited?" The answer would be yes.
It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
So while they aren't allowed to make a law that says that you can't say a certain thing, they aren't prohibited from making a law saying that you can be arrested from creating a disturbance. You can yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater for no reason and that's protected but you'll get arrested for disorderly conduct and creating a disturbance. Not for the word itself but for the action you created.
The same goes with firearms. You are allowed to keep and carry them but you can't menace people with them.
@thewheels
.308 Win
Spot on, this distinction is easy to miss. I've had to explain this to friends/family and coworkers too many times.
And generally, the grabbers miss it intentionally.
wizrd
6.5 Creedmoor
Supreme court justices are appointed for life. - Seems only proper that the appointment should be contingent on their 'passing' an exam for dementia and / or alzheimers - yearly say, after their 65th birthdaty -- ..just saying.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
I could care less what he thinks based on the first word.
I could care less what he thinks based on the first word.
@thewheels
.308 Win
He's still part of the problem.
Dr. Evil
20×102mm Vulcan
Other than his opinion, how so?
Except it doesn't say that!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
How can you rule that certain gun control is kosher...
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
and at the same time say that the militia is composed of the people. What good is a militia with guns that don't match the average infantry foot soldier's guns or the police's elite team's guns?.....
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
Where does it say guns?
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
What??? What exactly does it mean when he said, " Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: "
He want just talking about carrying. The word "and" separates two things. Keep means to have and any weapon includes guns as well.
You should read your own signature. It's staring at you every time you post.
So you are okay with IED's, Pipe Bombs, Chemical and Biological Weapons and Shoulder held Rockets and so forth. And yes Guns falls under weapons! But then this was added!
*Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those " in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp 54-56]*
Common use, do not Rifles, pistols, shot guns fall under Common use? And those I mentioned above fall under dangerous and unusual weapons?
*We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25*
So show where Heller supports gun control!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. A militia is supposed to be able to have the tools to defend against a standing army whether it be a domestic or foreign army.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
I already have numerous times. Your first sentence of your signature clearly shows that limitations can be placed on the second amendment.
Last edited:
Really!!
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
Yes. What do you think they were for? Appleseed shoots?
. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789
. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." - Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"...but a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe." - Andrew Jackson in his first Inaugural Address, 1829
Yes.
Marine Cpl
.577 Tyrannosaur.
That common use garbage that they like to use doesn't even make sense. Back then the citizenry had the same weapons as the military. They had muskets, crude grenades, and cannons. The rich had cannons and ships with cannons just like the rich today would have shoulder-fired rockets and tanks. We would only be able to afford our semi auto muskets just like those back in the days of the revolution.
We were supposed to evolve with military to have the same but the government stopped us with NFA and explosive laws
We were supposed to evolve with military to have the same but the government stopped us with NFA and explosive laws