Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: John R.Lott on Justice Stevens' amendation to the Second Amendment.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,151

    John R.Lott on Justice Stevens' amendation to the Second Amendment.

    "... Stevens unintentionally shows what those who drafted the amendment would have to have written to make it clear that they wanted it only to apply to those in the militia. There is a huge difference between "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed." Both statements are quite clear, but while Stevens would like everyone to believe that the 2nd Amendment was written as only a militia right."

    http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2014/0...ashington.html
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Because of course the writers didn't know how to write what they meant.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member cirrusly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    331
    I knew Stevens had previously publicly stated his desire to "rewrite" the second amendment, but I didn't know his logic has been debunked. I'm gonna give this John Lott book a read.
    I want to keep our founding fathers' visions and rights for this country pure. I implore you to do the same.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Northglenn, Colorado
    Posts
    243
    Stevens and logic don't belong in the same sentence. He's a liberal loon.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    They know why the 2A is there they don't like it because it puts them on the receiving end so they try all they can to change that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Ya know, this "retired Justice" isn't really retired? He can still hear cases at the appellate court level.

    His law license should be yanked ! He is not supposed to get involved in legislation when he has the ability to hear cases.

    He is registered in Illinois as an attorney ...
    https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=289983360

    Me thinks I will file a complaint concerning this loon at:
    https://www.iardc.org/htr_filingarequest.html

    Followup ... I called the iardc and spoke to a paralegal there ... he agreed that stevens actions are contrary to the ethical rules of an attorney since he is a judge and that judges, as long as they have the ability to hear cases, should not be advocating for new laws. And also found out that a person, not a resident of Illinois, still has standing to file a complaint with them...
    Last edited by davidmcbeth; 04-16-2014 at 04:05 PM.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Virginia's Constitution makes it pretty damn clear (even the original version).

    Stevens wants the militia to be a crappier version of a standing army. Unfortunately for him, whole point of a militia is that it isn't a standing army, and thus his concept of "while serving in the militia" makes no sense. The militia is the armed body of the citizenry.

    The militia isn't standing because they're generally at home. So, one either basically never serves in the militia, or one is always serving in the militia. Stevens' argument would depend on the former being the case, which would render the militia non-existent and the second amendment to no effect, which any jurist will tell you is not a valid way to interpret the law.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487
    Virginia's Constitution makes it pretty damn clear (even the original version).

    Stevens wants the militia to be a crappier version of a standing army. Unfortunately for him, whole point of a militia is that it isn't a standing army, and thus his concept of "while serving in the militia" makes no sense. The militia is the armed body of the citizenry.

    The militia isn't standing because they're generally at home. It's not akin to the national guard or something like that (which is itself an effectively standing army, see Kent State). So, one either basically never serves in the militia, or one is always serving in the militia. Stevens' argument would depend on the former being the case, which would render the militia non-existent and the second amendment to no effect, which any jurist will tell you is not a valid way to interpret the law.

  9. #9
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by marshaul View Post
    Virginia's Constitution makes it pretty damn clear (even the original version).

    Stevens wants the militia to be a crappier version of a standing army. Unfortunately for him, whole point of a militia is that it isn't a standing army, and thus his concept of "while serving in the militia" makes no sense. The militia is the armed body of the citizenry.

    The militia isn't standing because they're generally at home. So, one either basically never serves in the militia, or one is always serving in the militia. Stevens' argument would depend on the former being the case, which would render the militia non-existent and the second amendment to no effect, which any jurist will tell you is not a valid way to interpret the law.
    Yep I quote Virginia's constitution (written before there was a U.S.) to show the definition of militia. So well worded.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    So, who else is filing a complaint in Illinois to have his license censored or revoked?

  11. #11
    Regular Member Haz.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    I come from a land downunder.
    Posts
    1,227
    Writing sensationalist ******** does not make Justice Stevens a journalist.
    When a criminal invades your home and has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.

    My Definition of Gun Control: The idea that dozens of people found dead in the Broadway Café, Tasmania, and many also seriously wounded, all while waiting for police, who were called to show up and protect them, is somehow morally superior to having several armed and therefore alive civilian's explaining to police how the attacker got that fatal bullet wound.

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Haz. View Post
    Writing sensationalist ******** does not make Justice Stevens a journalist.
    No, bit it makes him a person who is violating his ethical obligations as a judge.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Globe, AZ
    Posts
    57

    My version of the 2nd ammendment

    The opening declares it to be a natural right
    As it is the natural, absolute and fundamental right of the individual to keep and bear arms, Congress, any State, any political sub division with a State shall make no law:

    This paragraph recognizes the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and spells it out.
    -- That in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute right of the individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed about their person, arms or components of arms and ammunition, in any all and all areas of the nation.

    This paragraph eliminates any possible permitting schemes and says permission to exercise that right cannot be required.

    -- That requires any Individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age to seek permission, permit or license, from any authority, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed, arms or components of arms and ammunition in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

    This paragraph eliminates any registration schemes.
    -- That requires arms or components of arms and ammunition, or record of any lawful sale or the possession thereof, to be registered or recorded with any authority.

    This paragraph prevents guns and ammunition from being taxed so that they prohibitively expensive.

    -- That imposes any special or selective, tax or regulation on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition.

    This paragraph prevents gun manufacturers from being sued by the misuse of their products by criminals.
    -- That places liability on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition for the misuse of arms or components of arms and ammunition, used by another individual in any act.
    Last edited by gunslinger493; 04-18-2014 at 03:17 AM. Reason: typo
    There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws. — AYN RAND

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838

    My complaint filed ... who else will file one?

    ARDC
    3161 W. White Oaks Dr., Ste. 301
    Springfield, IL 62704

    Dear ARDC, 18 APR 14

    I am writing to you to investigate a current licensed attorney in the State of Illinois.

    The attorney is John Paul Stevens. He can be reached at:
    United States Supreme Court
    1 First St. NE
    Washington, DC 20543

    He is a judge. He has stepped down as an active judge for the US Supreme Court. He can still sit, hear, and decide cases at various federal appellate court(s).

    Judge Stevens has had a book published, available for purchase (see attached Amazon ad), in which he advocates change to our laws and notably to the United States Constitution.

    Such a publication by a Judge who can hear cases at the United States Appellate Court level simply cannot be acceptable under the code of Judicial Conduct and ethical conduct obligations by a judge and lawyer licensed in the State of Illinois.

    The ARDC should take notice of the contents of the book "Six Amendments How and Why We Should Change the Constitution". Judge Stevens is campaigning for changes to the United States Constitution and using his prestige and influence as a Judge and former sitting Supreme Court Justice to push his manifesto as to what he sees as an idyllic America and to affect drastic changes to our federal constitution.

    Agree or disagree with the Judge's proposed changes is not relevant to the charge made here as it is simply unacceptable for a Judge to lead a charge to change the laws that he may rule upon and to use his prestige and influence to affect changes in law. It is an serious abuse of his authority.

    I would seek the revocation of his license to practice law that is within your authority.
    And would request any other relief as available through the ARDC.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •