Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Interesting (0+ / 0-)

    But Roy Copperud is not a legal scholar.  He is a grammarian, and as such, when interpreting the legal meaning of the Second Amendment, he doesn't get a vote.  There are nine men and women in flowing black robes who were just about evenly split on the question, and if Justice Marshall had decided to retire before 1980 instead of holding on until they wheeled him out on a gurney, the case would have gone the other way.

    Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

    by ccyd on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 05:37:11 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Grammar has an impact on law. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      It is grammatically impossible to twist the Second Amendment to read a "collective" right in place of an individual right.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Mon Oct 14, 2013 at 09:08:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lawyers make stuff up all the time (0+ / 0-)

        Just like the laws of physics didn't necessarily apply to Scotty's engineering department on the Enterprise, the rules of grammar don't necessarily apply to legal interpretation.

        Heller changed the law.  If that was the first time an individual right was recognized, then why didn't the rules of grammar apply before then?  The reason is stare decisis, i.e. the legal construction that cases carry precedential value and that future cases will be decided consistently with past cases.  If a legal principle is generally understood to hold sway, then that principle is the law until something happens to overturn it, regardless of whether it is grammatically correct or not.

        The law does absorb conventional wisdom from the world around and can change as the conventional wisdom changes.  The Supreme Court called this "evolving standards of decency," and has applied it especially in 8th Amendment cases.  

        If I were a proponent of an individual right under the 2nd Amendment, then I would look for a hook anywhere I could find one.  This is the kind of thing that would appeal to Justice Scalia, and perhaps factored into his interpretation.

        For the record, I consider your argument legitimate, and would form the basis of a good faith reason to challenge the pre-Heller law.  I just don't find it persuasive.

        Knowledge without conscience is the ruination of the soul -- François Rabelais

        by ccyd on Tue Oct 15, 2013 at 10:55:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It wasn't the first time an individual right was (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PavePusher

          recognized.

          For example: the Dred Scott decision pointed out that he couldn't have the same rights as any other citizen and explicitly pointed out the right to keep and bear arms as one of those rights.

        •  What does the following mean: (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?

          Does it mean a right of the people or does it mean the right of government forces?

          And please cite to any previous case law that says the right is not one of individuals.

          I'm not trying to be belligerant, just challanging your assertions.

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Wed Oct 16, 2013 at 05:25:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site