question about "arms" in 2nd amendment

[rts99]

Heller Opinion

The simplest place to start is with the Heller opinion. The majority defines what arms are, what keep arms means, and what bear arms means. It's not perfect, but its as good a place to start as any.

I also have a question: who is the US military? Are they Gods? Are they superior men who are ordained by God? Are they self-created supermen who have proven their genetic, moral, & legal superiority to the rest of us? Or are they just citizens, like the rest of us ("of the people")? Who paid for these weapons? God? Superman? Or "We the people"?

If the US Army is comprised of "the people" then the people already own every kind of weapon in US military inventory. Including nukes. The problem is that "the people" are not in control of said weapons. This is why the fear of a standing army was such a hot button topic in 1789. And remains so today.

 

[DarrinD2]

"arms"

Miller and Heller are outdated as to what the definition of arms is today. "Arms" are simply what the current Supreme Court says they are.

 

[sigcurious]

Miller and Heller are outdated as to what the definition of arms is today.

You are aware the Heller decision was in 2008 right?

 

[Metal god]

... the weapons that would be used in a militia. Then a few decades later, along came Heller- they held they knew what the second amendment was- an individual right to bear arms- and that arms were the ones in common use of the time

This is not directed at you jimDandy . That sucks ^^ The government can ban something then a few years later when a case makes it to SCOTUS they use the term "common use" to determine what may be reasonable . Those things that are banned would be in common use if the government had not made them illegal in 86.

 

[DarrinD2]

Sigcurious:

Sigcurious: Yes, I read Heller front to back right after it came out. My point is that the Court has become so political that if the issue ever came up, the precedential value is minimal and therefore "arms" is whatever a majority of the Court says it is. Sad, but true.

 

[sigcurious]

Yes, I read Heller front to back right after it came out. My point is that the Court has become so political that if the issue ever came up, the precedential value is minimal and therefore "arms" is whatever a majority of the Court says it is. Sad, but true.

While the foundation of your statement is true, ie arms are defined by the supreme court, your conclusion that the Heller decision would simply be ignored and a new definition would be set is a logical non sequitur.

 

[DarrinD2]

Sig, I agree with you but the Supreme Court has been disregarding logic and its own opinions for years, especially recently. They have also ignored their own recent "precedent." They have reversed their own opinions several times within the last 10 years on a variety of issues. I wish they would follow a consistent jurisprudence based on the text of the Constitution, but only one Justice really tries to do that now, and three others sort of follow along for the most part.

 

[sigcurious]

They have also ignored their own recent "precedent." They have reversed their own opinions several times within the last 10 years on a variety of issues.

Then cite evidence of these statements. I'd be particularly interested to see evidence of the court reversing on a decision that effectively the same justices(only two of the justices have changed since Heller) made just years earlier.

 

[DarrinD2]

They have reversed their own opinions several times within the last 10 years on a variety of issues. /QUOTE]

My quote and my apologies for the major typo. I meant within the last 100 years. If interested, you can see some of them here:

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm#page=0

But I stand by my comment that the Court members are getting more fast and loose with how they define important textual words in the Constitution. As for defining individual right to bear arms, two of my favorite judges, Scalia and Bork see the definition exactly opposite. Scalia: individual right exists. Bork: individual right exists for national guard members argument and not citizens, blah blah. I've practiced in appellate courts but am sadly disappointed in the Supreme Court because of its politicization.

 

[sigcurious]

That's the support for your argument? That in the past century and a half there have been some reversals? Further "supported" by a contrasting a current sitting Supreme court justice, with someone who was not a member of the Supreme Court? I'm sure you could find tons of judges that that have differing views. But their views don't matter in the context what the supreme court might or might not do, barring the slight chance that one of them were appointed to the supreme court.

No one will argue, that over the course of time, there won't be reversals in decision. However, what you have presented is not evidence that the current justices have either "ignored their own recent precedent" or that they would be prone to reverse on the Heller decision's definition of arms. What you have presented is that in roughly 150 years covering thousands of cases/decisions, 10 have been reversed. Coincidentally, 9 out of 10 of those reversals increased protections/freedoms for citizens by limiting government powers, not further restricting them by expanding or upholding government powers.

You can feel that the SCOTUS has become politicized, but that does not support your opinion that the Heller decision is minimal in value or make that statement "sad but true", nor does it support the conclusion that "the court members are getting more fast and loose".

 

[DarrinD2]

Sig, It wasn't an argument. It was an apology for a confusing post with a big typo. If you can't accept that then perhaps you should go find a member of the debate team to tussle with. That said, I do hope that when the next case on point goes up that the Court expands on Heller instead of reversing parts of it, but I won't be surprised if they change the definitions of things like "arms" that matter to gun owners. Peace, DarrinD

 

[zukiphile]

What you have presented is that in roughly 150 years covering thousands of cases/decisions, 10 have been reversed.

It is fair to observe that where the court has done something 10 times, it may end up doing it an 11th time. While there is no evidence that the court as composed at the time of the Heller decision would reverse that decision, it is unlikely that this composition will persist without end.

That does not diminish this scale of the victory in Heller; it just observes that no victory is permanent.