Thursday, June 26, 2008

Keep your laws off my guns

From the majority opinion:
Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.”

We have always had the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense. The Bill of Rights told government that they could not infringe upon this right. In theory that means stupid governors, mayors, presidents and even Ginny Burdick can't tell us what, where, when, how or why we have our guns.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

I think I'll adopt the same attitude about the Second Amendment that Daniel has about global warming: It simply does not exist.

Anonymous said...

But, we know Daniel can't actually pack a pistola as he can't get a concealed handgun permit. That is what happens when a criminal commits a gun crime: No concealed handgun permit.

Anonymous said...

From Daniel's mouth in a comment in the last post "I did jail time. I have been convicted of "unlawful possession of a firearm" ORS166.250 mistemeanor."

So why would it matter what gun laws are created? You can't carry or own. The most you can do is borrow a shotgun for a hunting trip, but you can't possess one in your home. Sounds like Daddy probably keeps your guns for you.

Daniel said...

You guys are about as familiar with gun laws as Justice Breyer.

Anonymous said...

Idiot 10:36,

There’s a big difference between the Second Amendment and global warming. One has existed in fact for over two hundred years. The other is a scientific theory yet to be proved or disproved (kind of like Bigfoot).

Anonymous said...

why would I need a concealed hand gun permit? Is this just another way of limiting my rights to bear arms? or is this the first step in registering all guns.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:23,

I agree! We should be allowed to carry concealed without permission from the government. Personally, I exercise my rights by carrying a nice short barreled S&W Model 19 everyday. And I do not have a CCL!

Anonymous said...

To summarize: We've had 8 eight years of assault on the U.S. Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus by the Bush administration and little Daniel Miglavs has nothing to say on the subject (too busy whining about "illegal aliens") until the Supremes weigh in on the one that he's essentially forfeited anyway because of his past criminal ways.

So then, Daniel: Are you saying that you do carry a gun? Okay, for those of us dolts who know so little about gun laws, please enlighten us. Explain the process. From which agency did you obtain your permit? Washington County Sheriff?

Anonymous said...

From today's LA Times:

Judicial activism by conservatives
The high court's 2nd Amendment opinion makes the majority's agenda clear.
By Erwin Chemerinsky
June 27, 2008


The Supreme Court's invalidation of the District of Columbia's handgun ban powerfully shows that the conservative rhetoric about judicial restraint is a lie. In striking down the law, Justice Antonin Scalia's majority opinion, joined by the court's four other most conservative justices, is quite activist in pursuing the conservative political agenda of protecting gun owners.

If the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" have any meaning, it is that a court is activist when it is invalidating laws and overruling precedent, and restrained when deferring to popularly elected legislatures and following prior decisions.

Never before had the Supreme Court found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns. In fact, in 1939 (and other occasions), the court rejected this view. In effectively overturning these prior decisions, the court both ignored precedent and invalidated a law adopted by a popularly elected government.

What's more, the court's interpretation is questionable. The text of the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous. Its second clause speaks of a right to "keep and bear arms," but its first clause suggests that this right exists because a "well-regulated militia" is essential. There is thus strong reason to believe that the 2nd Amendment only guarantees gun rights for those serving in a militia.

At the very least, one would expect that a high court committed to judicial restraint would have used the 2nd Amendment's ambiguity to defer to the political process and to follow precedent. Yet nowhere in Scalia's opinion was there mention of the need for judicial deference that is so characteristic of his opinions in cases involving other individual liberties.

What then explains the court's decision to strike down the D.C. law? Conservative political ideology. The majority followed prevailing conservative political philosophy and found that the 2nd Amendment bestows on individuals a right to have guns.

This should not be surprising. The conservative justices regularly jettison judicial restraint when it is at odds with conservative politics. They've done the same thing in cases involving affirmative action and desegregation programs.

The irony is that the same conservative justices who were so eager Thursday to find an individual liberty under the 2nd Amendment are loath to do so when a right of a criminal defendant is at stake or when it is a matter of enforcing the religion clauses of the 1st Amendment. Thursday's decision is a powerful reminder that the conservative justices are activists when it serves their political agenda.

Erwin Chemerinsky is the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law.

Anonymous said...

The complaint about "judicial activism" is bullshit: Conservatives object only to liberal judicial activism, and want conservative judicial activism; liberals object only to conservative judicial activism, and want liberal judicial activism. For either side to say they oppose "judicial activism" as a matter of principle is bullshit, plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1001: So you think that "judicial activism" is a phrase that only Republicans use when they are overruled by libs.

Then how do you explain away the overruling by a judge of a law that has been voted in by the people by a 2 to 1 vote, for instance?

If that ain't judicial activism, then what is?

Anonymous said...

"Then how do you explain away the overruling by a judge of a law that has been voted in by the people by a 2 to 1 vote, for instance?

If that ain't judicial activism, then what is?"

that is judicial interpretation. the job of the judiciary is to say "sorry, that law doesn't pass constitutional muster" when a law doesn't pass constitutional muster. the whole purpose of a constitution is to prevent a tyranny of the majority. a law making it illegal for blacks to drink from the same water fountain as whites might pass by a 2 to 1 margin, but it is still unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

Why are so many men obssessed with guns? Weird in a scary sort of way.

Funny how neo-cons mewl about activist judges when the "activity" favors liberal views, but when the ruling upholds their precious obssession they're quite happy about judge's "activism."

It's going to be nothing short of amazing how many Supremes retire when Obama is President. Ginsberg and several others have held on for 8 years refusing to retire while a Republican was in office to chose their replacement. Thanks for toughing it out Ruth.

Bobkatt said...

anon 8:58-I agree that too little attention is given to the violation of other constitutional guarantees. If you are concerned with one amendment you also need to stand up for the all of them. They are all important. Just because you disagree with the outcome it doesn't mean that the judges are activists. They did not disregard precedent. They conceded that some restrictions are legal such a in sensitive places and certain types of firearms and certain people. They looked at the situations and prevailing attitudes of the day in order to reach the conclusion that the founders intended for the people to always be able to defend themselves against even the governments tyranny.
With the Congress allowing Bush and Co. to determine what laws he will obey and basically walk all over the Constitution we are left with little else but self defense.

Anonymous said...

It isn't just Bush and Co. that picks and chooses what laws to obey.

This has been going on for quite some time.

Jack Van Nostrand

Anonymous said...

Can I just ask this one question?

What exactly are all you gunslingers "defending" yourselves against? What are you so scared of, exactly? (Okay, I guess that's two questions, or one phrased in two different ways).

While I don't necessarily feel that it's a good thing for society to have a bunch of freaked out people walking around packing heat, compared to other problems facing our nation, whether you are allowed to bear arms or not is pretty far down the list of importance. I really don't care whether you have 1 gun or 40, actually.

But back to the point. What are you all so afraid of? The violent crime rate in this country has been dropping rather precipitously for the past 20 years. What makes you feel that you are at constant risk of having violence done to your person? I mean, shit happens, but you have a far greater chance of dropping dead from a heart attack or dying in a car accident then you do of finding yourself in a situation where you need to defend your life by shooting someone...unless you're looking for that kind of confrontation, in which case, whatever floats your boat tough guy.

I think you guys either (a) listen to too much Lars "Napoleon Complex" Larson, or (b) watch too much television or both.

as it is said...

anon748: "I exercise my rights by carrying a nice short barreled S&W Model 19 everyday. And I do not have a CCL!"

Looky, another "respect for law" act supporter. No wonder you fools failed to gather enough signatures.

Anthony DeLucca said...

Anon 3:10

I'm not afraid, I'm vigilant. I understand that violence can be hurled at me or someone in my vicinity in an instant. It happens every day accross this country, and yes, even here in Portland. And when it does happen, I would rather have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

I have had to use a concealed handgun in defense of others and myself on two ocassions. On the first ocassion, the need to actually fire at my assailant was forced upon me by the actions of the assailant. Fortunately, I was able to make the him stop his actions, and he lived through the ordeal. As did I and another person he happened to be shooting at.

In the second instance, the mere presence of someone with the capability of defending themselves was enough to make the "bad guy" go the other way and stop his assault his girlfriend. Had he continued to beat her, I'm certain that she would have sustained major, if not fatal injuries.

The first instance was in broad daylight, right in old town.

Even after having a dozen witnesses who said that the bad guy shot at me first, and even after my concealed carry permit was confirmed, and even after the investigation was complete and I was found to have acted in self defense, the Portland Police Bureau STILL had my firearm locked up as evidence for 8 months until all of the relative trials were over. Luckily, I own several handguns and was able to begin packing again the following day.

The second amendment is a right that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not by a Mayor, not by a Govenor, not by a school board, not by an airport, not by a govenor. Not by anyone. It is a right, not a priveledge. With this right comes a certain responsibility. If you are not responsible, you will lose the right.

Many of you anonymous posters will say that the above incidents never took place. I don't care what you think. Just know that someday, when you are being assaulted by a lunatic, or a group of lunatics who are hell bent on your demise....you'll be PRAYING that someone with a gun and the proper knowledge of how to use it will come and save your sorry ass. I bet you'll be in love with the second amendment then.

Anonymous said...

Can I just ask this one question?

What exactly are all you gunslingers "defending" yourselves against? What are you so scared of?


YOU for a start!!!

That local baby rapist who YOU, will not execute based on the "progressive" court decision.

That home invasion from those wonderful imigrants, that couldn't get their checks cashed because they didn't have enough ID, THEY DIDN'T STEAL.

That home invasion that was supported by YOU, cause you have not allowed the Border Patrol to shoot if needed.

My 3 yr old granddaughter is watching "Mickey Mouse" this AM, she is not a "target" for CRIMINALLY INSANE BABY RAPIST ALLOWED TO ROAM any neighborhood as they were in Corneilus, Or.

This state, the elected people are as insane....as the inmates right now.

Anonymous said...

Laugh of the weekend: Miglavians pretending they're experts on Constitutional law.

Anonymous said...

Miglavians pretending they're experts on Constitutional law.

9:24 PM

I guess we are..WE WON!!!

Anonymous said...

With the liberal running Oregon for so long, the reason to carry a weapon comes down to self defense. But with the lack of security on our borders it will come to a civil war and those that have weapons will be able to protect themselves and their families. Civil war? Yes, because Americans will be required to defend itself from open border idiots that want us to join Canada and Mexico and lose our American rights and independents. We will need to protect ourselves from the invasion that has already begun from Mexico that is several million strong. Had this been any other country, we would already have called this an invasion and declared war! Collect your weapons before they are outlawed so we cannot protect ourselves from the government that was elected to protect us and defend out rights. Sound crazy? just watch for the next few years and see what freedoms you will have lost and what "rights" the illegals will have that are more protected than yours.
As it is, speaking against homosexuality is considered a hate crime (and you only have to speak your moral values). Next, speaking out against illegals and refusing to speak Spanish will follow. They already get free health care, access to free education, create or steal a false ID and don't have to pay taxes. You try that as an American and see how long you stay out of jail.

Bobkatt said...

You don't have to wait for civil war to be concerned about your safety and want to protect yourself. Here in Eugene we just had a biker try to run 2 undercover cops off the freeway in a 90 mile chase and although he was given a year in jail he was let out after one day due to overcrowding. A month ago 2 men chased an unarmed man in a residential area of Springfield and shot him in the head 3 times. Luckily he wasn't killed. Rather than receiving sentences for attempted murder or assault the 2 assailants were charged with unlawful use of a fire arm. Had they not been illegals and held for ICE these two would already be on the streets.

Anonymous said...

Yo, does anyone have a telephone number or web site address for the "well-regulated militia" for which gun rights were intended? I'd like to sign up.

Also, what are the regs in Washington county regarding the installation of an anti-aircraft missile launcher in your yard? How close to the sidewalk can you put it? I'd like to put in a couple so I feel "safe" and can enjoy my "personal independence."