Skip to main content

View Diary: Constitutionally protected RKBA, political speech, or public menace? Open Thread w Poll (129 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Hang on, why won't you concede your error here? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    What I said was "Scalia and the Heller majority placed a right to armed self-defense within the 2nd Amendment."

    You replied unequivocally "no they didn't."

    I demonstrated that you were incorrect, and in fact they did. Your response to that was essentially word salad.

    As a lawyer, whenever I see someone claim that the rationale commanding a majority of the Court's support is "mere dicta," I have to think that person doesn't understand the words he's using. The holding in this case was dependent on finding a Second Amendment right to self-defense. You can read the syllabus here. Pay particular attention to the fact that the syllabus begins with the word "Held." Here's what the third section of it says:

    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
    (bold mine)

    There is no interpretation of your comment that is correct. You are simply wrong.

    Are you now willing to concede that the Heller majority found an inherent right to self-defense within the Second Amendment?

    "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

    by JR on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:05:31 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Which you already know (0+ / 0-)

      "The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . "

      You didn't limit yourself. I pointed out that there is nothing unlimited about what was done ("No they didn't" do what you said.) And now you still seem to want to assert a breadth and depth to the, otherwise, nebulous self defense concept, that you can't support.

      So, Riddle Me This, what kind of a right is it that says persons with a prior criminal conviction can be convicted for merely trying to possess the tool that would make "enjoyment" of it possible? Or must never be asserted through the mechanism of a sawed off shotgun?

      Because the most absolute favorite saying of all of the RKBA types is "a right is a right".

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 05:57:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You totally missed the point of my piece (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The entire reason I wrote this is to point out that the actual right within the Second Amendment is far narrower than the RKBA types have been arguing, and that not all things considered "gun rights" are actually about the core right to keep and bear arms, but are peripheral.

        The syllabus is not the opinion itself. It's the headnotes, the guide to understanding what the opinion says. If you head to the pages referenced in point 3, for example (pages 56-64 of the Opinion of the Court) you can find the holding that the syllabus references. This is basic stuff.

        And again, you're trying to weasel out of being wrong and demonstrating that you have no interest in a good-faith discussion. And what good will I've had for you in the past has pretty much been sapped away by this truly sorry performance. You may be old, but you still need to grow  the hell up.

        "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

        by JR on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 06:37:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, don't address the points I've raised. n/t (0+ / 0-)

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:17:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  A little supplement (0+ / 0-)

          "The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted limited to the following question: Whether the following provisions, D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22–4504(a), and 7-2507.02, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
          This represented the first time since the 1939 case United States v. Miller that the Supreme Court had directly addressed the scope of the Second Amendment.[17]"

          Back in the day, I had three of my Cert Petititons granted by the SCOTUS and won them all.

          Of course, for all I know. your record there is far superior to my own.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Sat Oct 12, 2013 at 08:28:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site