My Answer to Breyer

Breyer: Consider too that countless gun regulations of many shapes and sizes are in place in every State and in many local communities.
Me: The beauty of MacDonald is that it is a sort of Constitutional Preemption. There are three bright lines. That is all that can be regulated, so this ruling is good, in that citizens do not have to worry about thousands of local, state and federal regulations, just three bright lines.
Breyer: Does the right to possess weapons for self-defense extend outside the home?
Me: YES
Breyer:To the car?
Me: YES
Breyer: To work?
Me: YES
Breyer: What sort of guns are necessary for self-defense?
Me: Loaded Guns or rifles with fixed bayonettes.
Breyer: Handguns?
Me: YES
Breyer Rifles?
Me: YES
Breyer: Semiautomatic weapons?
Me: YES
Breyer:When is a gun semi-automatic?
Me: Doesn’t matter all guns, including automatic are legal.
Breyer: Where are different kinds of weapons likely needed?
Me: We are talking about fundamental rights, need is irrelevant.
Breyer: Does time-of-day matter?
Me: NO
Breyer: Does the presence of a child in the house matter?
Me: YES it matters that I have a useable firearm to defend my child, but as a matter of law, no it does not matter.
Breyer: Does the presence of a convicted felon in the house matter?
Me: YES I have the right to self defence against said criminal.
Breyer: Do police need special rules permitting pat downs designed to find guns?
Me: Why would you need special rules to “find guns”. Guns are legal. Gun owners have 4th A rights which must not be violated.
Breyer: When do registration requirements become severe to the point that they amount to an unconstitutional ban?
Me: At the point of infringement; i,e; when the government requires registration. PS registration with a fee is double infringement, we don’t pay to have rights.
Breyer: Who can possess guns and of what kind?
Me: Anybody, any kind.
Breyer: Aliens?
Me: Of course. These rights are preexisting rights of man, including the core right – the right of self defense. They exist whether or not the Constitution exists. Therefore they are the right of all humankind, which includes aliens.
Breyer: Prior drug offenders?
Me: Of Course. Why would you want to take away the Civil rights of caffeine addicts?
Breyer: Prior alcohol abusers?
Me: Pretty wide swath you cut there. What other civil rights might you consider taking from citizens that have been to a bar and had one too many?
Breyer: How would the right interact with a state or local government’s ability to take special measures during, say, national security emergencies?
Me: What an asinine question. The fundamental right trumps local, state and federal ability to take special measures including special measures against the constitution and the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment was designed to ensure that the people retained the tools to resist such tyrannical “special measures.” I mean really Judge, you just don’t get it!
Breyer: As the questions suggest, state and local gun regulation can become highly complex, and these “are only a few uncertainties that quickly come to mind.”
Me:I agree. That is why MacDonald’s 3 bright lines are good for America. It keeps it simple.

My Response to Justice Breyer,

Resign.


Sincerely,

Nick Smith
Tacoma, WA

One of the biggest problems with these supreme court judges is that they no there is very, very little to no chance of them being held accountable and fired for their decisions. I can only guess that Congress fails to hold them accountable because they themselfs are not held accountable except during election time when the majority of Americans suffer from memory loss.

The system was built that way

One_Shot said:

One of the biggest problems with these supreme court judges is that they no there is very, very little to no chance of them being held accountable and fired for their decisions. I can only guess that Congress fails to hold them accountable because they themselfs are not held accountable except during election time when the majority of Americans suffer from memory loss.

Click to expand...

Congressional critters are not held accountable because they have rigged our electoral process to be a two party system. Real choice would mean real change.

Supreme Court Justices were meant to be unaccountable to the legislative or executive branch. Seperation of powers is a basic tenant of our system of government.

Seperation of powers only works when one branch does not fear another. FDR threatened and intimidated SCOTUS. That is why he is as close as we have ever come to a dictator in the oval office. Our current President also works to threaten and undermine SCOTUS. Remember he "called them out" at the State of the Union Address. What a shameful act.

Keep your powder dry.

Thundar

Another Rebuttal to Dissenters

http://reason.com/archives/2010/06/30/gun-shy

gogodawgs said:

Resign.


Sincerely,

Nick Smith
Tacoma, WA

Click to expand...

Actually...I'd rather he didn't resign. That'd give the dumb a$$ in the white house a third SC appt...of a much younger justice that'll be around for 30 years or so....Breyer isn't going to be around another 30 years.

I'd much rather have Breyer die in his sleep peacefully one night, AFTER our current sorry excuse for a president, and the next one term president in our history, is summarily dissmissed by the people...So a conservative can appoint the next justice.

Thundar said:

Congressional critters are not held accountable because they have rigged our electoral process to be a two party system. Real choice would mean real change.

Supreme Court Justices were meant to be unaccountable to the legislative or executive branch. Seperation of powers is a basic tenant of our system of government.

Seperation of powers only works when one branch does not fear another. FDR threatened and intimidated SCOTUS. That is why he is as close as we have ever come to a dictator in the oval office. Our current President also works to threaten and undermine SCOTUS. Remember he "called them out" at the State of the Union Address. What a shameful act.

Keep your powder dry.

Thundar

Click to expand...

In a system with true separation of powers, would you think that Supreme Court Justices should be chosen and promoted from within the judiciary? Not appointed by the executive, nor confirmed by the legislative...

CA_fr_KS said:

In a system with true separation of powers, would you think that Supreme Court Justices should be chosen and promoted from within the judiciary? Not appointed by the executive, nor confirmed by the legislative...

Click to expand...

We don't just have separation of powers. We also have checks and balances. One of the checks and balances the executive exercises over the judiciary is the appointment of justices.

The legislative branch does have some oversight over the Supreme Court. A Justice that refuses to follow the Constitution can and should be impeached. After all, their term is limited to a term of good behavior.