[MLUG - DISCUSSION] Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights

[Vern Green]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu>
wrote:

> On Fri, 27 Jun 2008, Vern Green wrote:
>
> > I was thinking the same thing as Jerry.
> >
> > If liberals in this country considered the 2 nd amendment the same way
> > they do the 1st and the 5th, not only would gun ownership be a right, it
> > would be a requirement.
>
> You don't like freedom of speech or due process of law?


I never said that, what I was saying is that liberals tend to pick and
choose how they read specific rights and place limits on the rights as they
see fit.


> All such rights
> have limitations -- we are free to speak our minds, but not to yell 'fire'
> in a crowded theater or to give a loud speech at 4:00 am in a residential
> neighborhood.


You are correct, the reason is not because we are establishing some sort of
Government limitation on those rights, it is because those actions infringe
on the rights of others. Which in my opinion is the only limitation placed
on something considered a right.

Rights are guaranteed to us by what?  Where did the Bill of Rights come
> from?  I think it is a government document.


You might think it is a Government document, and I am not sure I would
categorically disagree, but whether or not it is a Government document is
really irelevant. It is widely understood that the Bill of Rights
places limits on the United States Government, not its people. So even if it
is a Government Proscribed document, it is not a document meant to limit the
rights of the people. Furthermore, contrary to popular liberal belief, the
Government of this country is supposed to be controlled by the people, not
the other way around.


>
>
> Are you all up in arms because someone said that rights are "granted to us
> by the government" when you think they should have said that rights are
> "guaranteed to us by the government?"


They are guaranteed to us by our Government. I did not mean to imply all
people in the world have the same rights as we do.


>  If we are endowed with unalienable
> rights by a Creator, that has little effect unless our governments accept
> that notion -- go tell it to Robert Mugabe or Kim Jong-il.


Different Governments, however, there are certain rights that Governmental
bodies around the world accept as unalienable. When we find that those
rights are being violated, Governments around the world sometimes agree and
take action. Such as the extermination of people based on race or religion.
We tend to think  that all people around the globe have the right to live
and not be persecuted. When those persecutions happen, then World
governments step in to correct the problem. As has been the case throughout
history.

>
>

I think you guys have been partying too much in celebrating this very
> minor decision.  You're getting kind of wild in your claims.  It isn't
> going to change things very much.


I am not sure about that, I believe handgun bans all over the United States
will be challenged and overturned. Those bans in San Francisco, Chicago and
New York will likely be overturned.


> Your ideas about "fundamental rights"
> are not clearly stated -- the "right to bear arms" includes what sort of
> arms exactly and under what conditions?  You seem to think that this right
> is crystal clear, absolute and all-inclusive, but then you must still be
> high from your big party last night.


The problem with trying to imply what someone "seems" to be saying is that
you will get it wrong. I clearly attribute to the concept of regulation and
have no problem with it. We have the right to vote in this country, but you
have to be 18 to excercise that right, you cannot be a convict and you have
to register. Those are regulations that are applied to a right, I have no
problem with that. But if a city were to say "You cannot vote unless you
show up at the voting booth wearing a toga, eating a banana, and riding on a
unicycle that would be an unreasonable restriction.

You might think the analogy is not relevant, but it is. DC was essentially
saying that you can own a firearm, if you have a permit, if you disable it.
The problem is they created a ban because they were not allowing any
permits. That is an unreasonable restriction to our right and that is what
the SCOTUS ruled on.


> Scalia went on and on about how
> limited the implications of this decision are.  What the SCOTUS has done
> with US v Heller is to open a can of worms that's going to lead to years
> and years of cases to establish what the limits are in regulating arms
> ownership, use, sale, distribution, etc.
>
I disagree, I think there will be cases, but those cases will be ruled on
and likely not reviewed by the SCOTUS.

>
> This is what you need to read:
>
> http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
>
> Pages   1 -   3: Intro
> Pages   4 -  67: Scalia's majority opinion
> Pages  68 - 113: Stevens' dissenting opinion
> Pages 114 - 157: Breyer's dissenting opinion
>
> You will probably get the most out of reading the dissenting opinions
> because they will help to clarify for you how it is that the 2nd amendment
> was never before interpreted by the courts as a right to individual gun
> ownership for the purpose of self-defense.
>
I will read those likely this weekend. The fact that the 2nd amendment has
rarely had a ruling, I think only twice in history, is not withstanding in
this discussion. Stevens might not have liked that the ruling came down as
an individual right but if you go back and read the founding father's
opinions on the case, it is clear that was the original intent. To not
consider that in the decision making process and place a concern of safety
over an individuals rights is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to
avoid.

>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> discussion at mlug.missouri.edu
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>



-- 
Thanks
F Vernon Green
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mlug.missouri.edu/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20080627/8e968c4d/attachment.htm