moonman
11-18-2007, 05:20 AM
Remember when those damn liberals were subverting justice and freedom and Mom & Gawd & apple pie & promoting porn and lust and sin and encouraging girls it was not only okay to have sex outside of marriage but they could enjoy it too all through dirty low down lyin' conivin' activist judges?
Well....
An editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin argues:
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review an appeal of a decision that struck down the District of Columbia's gun law.
Courts have ruled for more than a century that the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on possession of firearms, but the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has ruled that such measures are unconstitutional. Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett has properly joined three other state attorneys general in asking that the Supreme Court overturn the ruling to maintain public safety.
The peculiarly punctuated Second Amendment reads: "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." The Hawaii Constitution includes a similar provision, kindly dropping the first and last commas. Hawaii law also forbids ownership of assault pistols, automatic firearms and short-barrel shotguns.
In 1939, the Supreme Court agreed with decades of decisions by state courts that a sawed-off shotgun was not among the "arms" the Founding Fathers had in mind. The constitutional right to possession of a gun, that court ruled, should have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
A lawsuit financed by wealthy libertarian Robert A. Levy argues that a security guard he found as a plaintiff should be licensed to keep at home the handgun he uses on his job. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. appeals panel ruled that the Second Amendment's "right in question is individual," not tied to militia membership.
This case was a complete "setup job" by the gun lobby hoping to overturn D.C.'s handgun ban and other gun violence prevention measures. Frankly, we're quite cynical that the D.C. Court of Appeals gave proper analysis to the District's arguments that its gun laws reduce gun violence and improve community safety, which they certainly do.
In addition the appellate court threw out the robust history of gun regulation in the United States, as well as longstanding precedent that found there is no "individual right to keep and bear arms" written into the Constitution.
One of the ranking scholars on the Second Amendment debate is Professor Saul Cornell, author "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America." In an interview with BuzzFlash.com, Cornell, an award-winning historian at Ohio State stated:
The thing one has to appreciate in trying to understand the history of the Second Amendment is that we’ve had gun regulation as long as there have been guns in America. The Founding Fathers were not opposed to the idea of regulation. In fact, their view of liberty was something that they would have described as “well-regulated liberty.”
The idea of regulation, the idea of reasonable government regulation, was absolutely essential to the way they understood liberty. In fact, in their view, if you didn’t have regulation, you had anarchy.
Next to tyranny, anarchy was the thing they feared most. So it’s really almost impossible to understand the Founding Fathers and their world view, including their views of guns, without understanding that they were strongly committed to the idea of regulation. What’s interesting is that somehow this notion has completely dropped out of our modern debate.
This is why it is absolutely essential to listen to our nation's formidable historians versus legal theorists. Legal theorists all too easily twist court decisions into new and "creative" concepts of law. It's fine for intellectual debate, but when important Constitutional issues and the welfare and safety of our country -- including people's lives -- is at stake, maybe it's time to revisit the original intent and understanding of the Second Amendment from the founders of our country.
It's rather chilling to see how conservative the Supreme Court has become, where our legal system is ruled by men, not by laws.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin concludes:
Gun advocates have long claimed a constitutional right to be armed, and the case could determine just how far to the right the Supreme Court has become. In his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. testified that the 1939 ruling "side-stepped the issue," leaving gun controls "very open" to question. Justice Clarence Thomas opined 10 years ago that "perhaps, at some future date, the court will have the opportunity" to review the Second Amendment right.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this month whether to consider the D.C. ruling. Refusing to do so would send a wrong signal, although not binding, through the state and federal court systems.
It needs to be overturned.
We couldn't agree more.
I agree too with the caveat, can this SCOTUS be trusted to make the right decision.
Well....
An editorial in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin argues:
The U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether to review an appeal of a decision that struck down the District of Columbia's gun law.
Courts have ruled for more than a century that the Second Amendment allows reasonable restrictions on possession of firearms, but the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia has ruled that such measures are unconstitutional. Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett has properly joined three other state attorneys general in asking that the Supreme Court overturn the ruling to maintain public safety.
The peculiarly punctuated Second Amendment reads: "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." The Hawaii Constitution includes a similar provision, kindly dropping the first and last commas. Hawaii law also forbids ownership of assault pistols, automatic firearms and short-barrel shotguns.
In 1939, the Supreme Court agreed with decades of decisions by state courts that a sawed-off shotgun was not among the "arms" the Founding Fathers had in mind. The constitutional right to possession of a gun, that court ruled, should have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
A lawsuit financed by wealthy libertarian Robert A. Levy argues that a security guard he found as a plaintiff should be licensed to keep at home the handgun he uses on his job. In a 2-1 decision, the D.C. appeals panel ruled that the Second Amendment's "right in question is individual," not tied to militia membership.
This case was a complete "setup job" by the gun lobby hoping to overturn D.C.'s handgun ban and other gun violence prevention measures. Frankly, we're quite cynical that the D.C. Court of Appeals gave proper analysis to the District's arguments that its gun laws reduce gun violence and improve community safety, which they certainly do.
In addition the appellate court threw out the robust history of gun regulation in the United States, as well as longstanding precedent that found there is no "individual right to keep and bear arms" written into the Constitution.
One of the ranking scholars on the Second Amendment debate is Professor Saul Cornell, author "A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America." In an interview with BuzzFlash.com, Cornell, an award-winning historian at Ohio State stated:
The thing one has to appreciate in trying to understand the history of the Second Amendment is that we’ve had gun regulation as long as there have been guns in America. The Founding Fathers were not opposed to the idea of regulation. In fact, their view of liberty was something that they would have described as “well-regulated liberty.”
The idea of regulation, the idea of reasonable government regulation, was absolutely essential to the way they understood liberty. In fact, in their view, if you didn’t have regulation, you had anarchy.
Next to tyranny, anarchy was the thing they feared most. So it’s really almost impossible to understand the Founding Fathers and their world view, including their views of guns, without understanding that they were strongly committed to the idea of regulation. What’s interesting is that somehow this notion has completely dropped out of our modern debate.
This is why it is absolutely essential to listen to our nation's formidable historians versus legal theorists. Legal theorists all too easily twist court decisions into new and "creative" concepts of law. It's fine for intellectual debate, but when important Constitutional issues and the welfare and safety of our country -- including people's lives -- is at stake, maybe it's time to revisit the original intent and understanding of the Second Amendment from the founders of our country.
It's rather chilling to see how conservative the Supreme Court has become, where our legal system is ruled by men, not by laws.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin concludes:
Gun advocates have long claimed a constitutional right to be armed, and the case could determine just how far to the right the Supreme Court has become. In his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. testified that the 1939 ruling "side-stepped the issue," leaving gun controls "very open" to question. Justice Clarence Thomas opined 10 years ago that "perhaps, at some future date, the court will have the opportunity" to review the Second Amendment right.
The Supreme Court is expected to decide later this month whether to consider the D.C. ruling. Refusing to do so would send a wrong signal, although not binding, through the state and federal court systems.
It needs to be overturned.
We couldn't agree more.
I agree too with the caveat, can this SCOTUS be trusted to make the right decision.