• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Catching up now that I'm settled back in WA

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
594
Location
Stanwood, WA
My long-time friend, Eugene Volokh (professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA), whom I have known for over 35 years (yep, he was 17 when we met and were both computer programmers), posted this very concise and clear explanation of the Second Amendment and what it means. The next time you are talking to some who just doesn't "get it," refer them to this link.!

It's a good listen!
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
497
Eugene Volokh is a good guy and a good read. I am pleased that we correspond occasionally and amiably. I don’t recall precisely how I was introduced to him, but possibly through my Ossetian - Georgian mathematics professor then at The College of Charleston.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,586
Location
here nc
seem youse guy's bitty buddy forgot to mention that the "people" who had the "right" were white aristocratic landowners...not Natives, Negros, nor women!

minor point i'm sure in his free speech presentation!
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,194
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
My long-time friend, Eugene Volokh (professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA), whom I have known for over 35 years (yep, he was 17 when we met and were both computer programmers), posted this very concise and clear explanation of the Second Amendment and what it means. The next time you are talking to some who just doesn't "get it," refer them to this link.!

It's a good listen!
I must disagree with his statement of not unlimited.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,325
Location
White Oak Plantation
When judges start enforcing their own opinions/rulings...themselves...will then LE be "obliged" to follow the law(s)...especially that pesky "law of the land"...
 

rapgood

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
594
Location
Stanwood, WA
I must disagree with his statement of not unlimited.

Lower courts, federal and state, keep quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 592, 171 L.Ed 2d 637, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008) for the proposition that keeping and bearing arms only applies to the home and the second amendment is not absolute.

Let’s be clear, Scalia gave his "opinion." His opinion is not the law. Article VI of the Constitution describes what qualifies as the law of the land. The only national laws are the Constitution, congressional law, and treaties. And, congressional law (statutory law) and treaties are only lawful if they pass constitutional muster. In Heller, Scalia told you what the law of the land is, the “Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.” Then Scalia reiterated, “Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers.” Scalia’s opinion is directed towards two sovereigns, the fed and the states, not the citizens.

Scalia, speaking for the court, specifically stated what the law of the land is. Anything else he says is his opinion, dicta. "Not absolute" is an opinion, it is not the law. The Supremes have made it clear, the 1A and 2A are absolute. Neither Congress nor the states can make a law that interferes with 1A or 2A, period. And, that is why “only in the home” was struck down because it infringed on a preexisting right.

Just like the lower courts saying the Supreme Court proclaims that: “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” is a crime. The case they rely on is Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). “Shouting fire in a crowded theater” in of itself is protected speech. The result of that free speech is what could be a crime. Not the speech itself. The actual sentence from Schenck is: “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” The panic is the crime, the tort.

Res judicata facit ex albo nigrum; ex nigro, album; ex curvo, rectum; ex recto, curvum

Translation: A thing adjudged [the solemn judgment of a court] makes white, black; black, white; the crooked, straight; the straight, crooked.

The 2A says “shall not be infringed.” It does not say shall not be infringed except for what the Supreme Court says. The manner of carry cannot be regulated because it is an infringement.

The Supreme Court told you what the 2A says, the law of the land says it shall not be infringed.
This is, of course, your opinion... And 2Am gives me the right to defend it "absolutely."
 
Top