Help me out here, please -any- Constitution scholars we have

[Tuesday Afternoon]

Does it not stand to reason that the more narrowly the 2A is defined will it not leave a way for all amendments to be also more narrowly defined?

The door will be opened, correct? The wedge will be in place. It could be argued. etc ...

[JoeBlowToo]

1. Already happened...your fourth amendment rights are gone...

The 9/11 hysteria sealed that one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. The Fourth Amendment:

The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause. It was adopted as a response to the abuse of the writ of assistance, which is a type of general search warrant, in the American Revolution. Search and seizure (including arrest) should be limited in scope according to specific information supplied to the issuing court, usually by a law enforcement officer, who has sworn by it. The Fourth Amendment applies to the states by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

more at link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[JoeBlowToo]

10. Excerpt from "Eroding Liberties" from NYCLU...

4th AMENDMENT FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES &SEIZURES
• Law Enforcement authorities may now conduct secret searches and wiretaps in your home or office
without showing “probable cause.” They need only to claim that intelligence gathering is “a significant
purpose” of their intrusion, even when the primary goal is ordinary law enforcement. They may also
monitor where and to whom you send and receive e-mail, or where you go on the Internet, recording
every e-mail address and website you have been in contact with.
• Law Enforcement may now demand any personal records held by any source including your doctor,
employer, accountant, or library. All they have to do is claim that it is related to an investigation into
“terrorism.” The record keepers may not reveal that your records were provided to the government.
• Judicial oversight of secret searches has been effectively minimized. The Patriot Act directs judges to
consent to secret searches based only on the Government’s assertion that a “significant” purpose of
an investigation is gathering information related to “terrorism,” as the government defines it.

http://www.nyclu.org/pdfs/eroding_liberty.pdf

[kudzu22]

3. I'm no expert but I think each amendment has its own level of scrutiny

Depending on which law is trying to infringe on or curtail it. Something about compelling government interest having the lowest scrutiny. Maybe one of the fine lawyers here can weigh in and explain it better.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. yes, thanks for the comment and Yes, it would be nice to hear from a lawyer, especially one that has

experience in arguing Constitutional Law.

[Gman]

5. That's a completely irrelevant, straw man argument

It has nothing to do whatsoever with the gun debate.

But to answer your question as a side note, the constitution and it's amendments have been debated, defined and redefined many times over the last 200+ years.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. It was a fucking question and it was respectfully asked. heres another question, Gman -

What are your credentials as a Constitutional Scholar?

and another question while I am at it:
Does it not stand to reason that the whole concept of the Constitution is to define it, either by narrowing or broadening it, as the case may be ...

[Gman]

28. No. The whole concept of the Constitution is not to define it

that is not what is intended by any constitution. In fact initially, the SCOTUS dd not perform judicial review.

[2naSalit]

7. Though not an attorney

and seeing none addressing your question yet...

There is the possibility of such a situation occurring, however, it is also true that each Article and Amendment of the Constitution are interpreted and reinterpreted each time they are employed in a court of law. The higher the level of the court interpreting the argument, the more likely it is to stand until it is brought back to the courts to be reinterpreted yet agian. When a Constitutional argument is made, it has to go through the process of moving up in level of courts until it eventually becomes "ripe" for the SCOTUS to review, thus the "lower courts" seeing an argument prior to the Appellate, District and then the SCOTUS. Once the SCOTUS comes to a decision as to whether they will handle the interpretation or let a lower court ruling stand is entirely up to them. Congress can also reinterpret Articles and Amendments but that is like dragging a herd of cats up a ladder as we have seen of late.

So, it is possible that your concern of narrowed interpretation could become a paradigm in the courts but not all that likely unless you have an overwhelming majority of all three branches of government agreeing to it. But then, as we have seen, having a RW majority SCOTUS and the House can hasten the series of arguments and determinations in a right leaning interpretation, but not likely since there will be push back from the Senate and Executive(WH). That's how it's worked so far, hope that's how it continues to work in the future, which is why everyone needs to understand their rights and responsibilities in this participatory government... and actually participate!

Does that help at all?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

8. IMHO...

...there are varying ideas of the exact nature of a "right". That was my thought as a way to begin that discussion.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. Someone who has more weight than I do:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

Quote from Alan Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard, don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like."

[Tuesday Afternoon]

11. and thank you and his Credentials:

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.[1]

Dershowitz is known for his involvement in several high-profile legal cases and as a commentator on the Arab–Israeli conflict. As a criminal appellate lawyer, he has won 13 of the 15 murder and attempted murder cases he has handled, and has represented a series of celebrity clients, including Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Jim Bakker.[2] His most notable cases include his role in 1984 in overturning the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of his wife, Sunny, and as the appellate adviser for the defense in the O.J. Simpson trial in 1995.[3]

A political liberal,[4][5][6][7] he is the author of a number of books about politics and law, including Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow Case (1985), the basis of the 1990 film; Chutzpah (1991); Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996); the best-selling The Case for Israel (2003); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004)[8] and The Case for Peace (2005).

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. I figure...

...Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004) would be a good read.

What do you think a "right" is?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. what do -I- think is a right?

oh golly. and then qualify the right by calling it inalienable. yes, it is Not A lot.

life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

under life:
clean air
clean water
good mental and physical health care

liberty
to be an individual as equal as any other

pursuit of happiness
to be educated enough to be able to determine the difference between happiness and the pursuit of happiness.



you next ...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. I believe in...

...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I believe these rights are attributes of people as much as having hands and feet. I don't think human rights arise from agreements or government created laws. I think the Bill of Rights is an outline for law making and as criteria for the courts and a guide for how rights are to be protected from government overrunning individual liberties and freedoms.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. oh yes.

-I- would define it that way also. Very Narrowly.

I am not even sure we have the "right" to be born. Re: Abortion.

I was going within context of this OP and discussion and how it was defined by our Founders.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

16. I'll think more on it & get back to you.

[jimmy the one]

17. Footstick Alert

discontnt cites atty dershowitz out of context: Alan Dershowitz: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a public safety hazard, don’t see the danger in the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like."

Better sit down, discntnt, for the irony: atty dershowitze supports the narrow individual rights interpretation of 2ndA, the narrow reading which tuesaft is so afeared of. -- Did you even read what was immediately in front of what you lifted above from wiki? you must have, how could you have missed it?:

discntnt's wiki link: Dershowitz is strongly opposed to firearms ownership and the Second Amendment, and supports repealing the amendment, but he vigorously opposes using the judicial system to read it out of the Constitution because it would open the way for further revisions to the Bill of Rights and Constitution by the courts.
"Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

Dershowitz supports legislating the 2ndA out of existence by repealing it in congress (hah), he just does not support using the supreme court to neuter 2ndA since that would open the door (in his opinion) to other amendments being undone.
.. In his last paragraph, dershowitz is simply noting what liberals do, rather than opposing what they are saying. Dersh believes the 2ndA was a militia based RKBA with a narrow individual right to own a firearm in your home, adjunct to militia service. Dershowitz hates guns & has said so & has said he would never own one.

Piers Morgan hosted a debate on his CNN show tonight over gun control.. The debate ended up devolving into a shouting match between Morgan and {gun guru} John Lott, with Morgan at one point yelling “You’re not giving me a sensible answer!” and fellow guest Alan Dershowitz repeatedly scolding Lott for his “junk science.”

For a hundred years, the Constitution was interpreted to mean that state militias, essentially state police had a right to bear arms, because that's what the first half of {2A} says," explained CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin. "But as of 2008, as a result of years of lobbying and years of Republican appointees to the court, in 2008, the Supreme Court said individuals have a right to bear arms.. So the law of the land now is that govt is really very limited in how much gun control it could pass.."
Alan Dershowitz presented an alternate theory: "Now, where I disagree with my friend and former student Jeffrey Toobin is I think although the Supreme Court rendered a decision on the Second Amendment, it left open a tremendous amount of room for reasonable regulation,"

in other words, dershowitz agreed with what toobin said about 2ndA history.
Qualifies as a footstick --- OOOOOOPS!

[gejohnston]

18. no one said AD was pro gun

but I doubt Toobin is correct either since there has never been a SCOTUS decision to support Toobin's claim.

[jimmy the one]

20. a 'really big shew'

johnston: .. no one said AD {dershowitz} was pro gun but I doubt Toobin is correct either since there has never been a SCOTUS decision to support Toobin's claim.

Red herring, irrelevant, since I posted toobins quote simply to show that dershowitz agreed with toobins interpretation of how 2ndA had been viewed in the past, that 2ndA was incumbent upon being in a well reg'd militia.
And I never said anyone said dershowitz was, 'pro gun'.

no one said AD {dershowitz} was pro gun

Well I've seen two footsticks tonight along with your tapdance; as ed sullivan might've said: 'a really big shew'.

Discntnt was citing dershowitz as a freindly witness on the individual RKBA interpretation, then tues aft concurred with discntnt & thanked him, now you try to divert from the footsticks. Nobody knowledgeable in his right mind would think dershowitz 'pro gun'.

dershowitz - note when he says 2A 'provides for' RKBA, he means as a narrow individual RKBA as he's stated elsewhere (but I coulnd't find on google):
dersh: I do think the Second Amendment does provide for the right to bear arms. I'm one of the few civil libertarians I know who believes that. I hate guns. If I could press a button and make every gun disappear, I would do it. I hate guns with a passion. I would never have a gun in my home. I just hate guns. - M. Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard University.

I'm a moderate on gun control. From a political point of view I'm a radical. I'd like to abolish guns, but from a balancing of constitutional perspective, I would favor the Brady Bill. I'm in favor of registration. I'm in favor of broad controls on guns. - M. Alan Dershowitz.

Actually I don't care much for dershowitz, for his support of OJ simpson. The American Bar Association's official position on 2ndA was that of a militia based RKBA, has always been that way I believe, dunno about post heller tho, doubt they changed. In fact you've seen that long list of 'enemies of the nra'. Most of them groups support militia based RKBA.
Only credible group I've seen which supports individual RKBA has been 'Ducks Unlimited'.

[gejohnston]

21. for example

I really don't care what his personal opinion is. Some lawyer's personal or political opinions has nothing to do with doing their job as a lawyer. Was his support for OJ Simpson simply doing his job as a lawyer?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/06/us/06firearms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Tuesday Afternoon]

22. That is why I bolded the fact that he is a Criminal Apellate Lawyer. Still await a post from

a Constitutional Scholar. Thanks.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

37. The fact that...

...I accept the lawyer's opinion that using the courts (his area of expertise) to single out and change the intent of one of the rights in the Bill of Rights is a dangerous course does not mean that I need to accept his support for having congress repeal the 2A.

Please highlight the procedure for lobbying the SCOTUS.

[jimmy the one]

19. Footstick Alert, Take II (dersh again)

Tues afternoon thanks discntnt for posting ati 2ndA dershowitz out of context:

and thank you and his Credentials: Alan Morton Dershowitz (born September 1, 1938) is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.
.. etc, etc, see previou postings).....
A political liberal, he is the author of a number of books about politics and law, including Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Bülow Case (1985), the basis of the 1990 film; Chutzpah (1991); Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case (1996); the best-selling The Case for Israel (2003); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (2004) and The Case for Peace (2005).

I think there's some discontent going around here, due the irony, & my sarcasm, on a saturday afternoooooooooooon.

This is gonna be interesting, how you two retract your misguided praise of alan dershowitz! that anti gun, anti 2nd amendment gun grabbing liberal anti rights nazi!

[Tuesday Afternoon]

24. and thank you for that -

jimmy the looooooooooooooooooock.

[jpak]

23. By a narrow definition, felons and the mentally ill cannot be denied guns.

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

25. and your credentials are ... ?? -

good to see you, jpak.

always a pleasure

[jpak]

26. I can read - there are no exceptions in the Holy 2A for felons etc.

only mention of a Well Regulated Militia.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

29. on edit:

there is more to it than that ... and, you know it.

[jpak]

32. Really? Where are the provisions stipulating infringement for felons and the mentally ill?

Nowhere.

yup

[Tuesday Afternoon]

33. I didn't say there was but, you did not quote 2A in its entirety. --

There are many different types, classes and degrees of *mentally ill*

[jpak]

43. yes - as in "gun nuts"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. are those anything like pecans?

I love pecan pie, yum!

[geckosfeet]

27. There is nothing in 2A that prevents reasonable regulation. You can't

shout fire in a crowded theater.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

30. Define Regulation --

[geckosfeet]

36. jeezuz. use a dictionary

regulation

[Tuesday Afternoon]

38. cheesus. since we are talking about machinery, I am going with #3

Last edited Sun Feb 3, 2013, 08:01 AM - Edit history (3)

Machinery . the percentage difference in some quantity related to the operation of an apparatus or machine, as the voltage output of a transformer or the speed of a motor, between the value of the quantity at no-load operation and its value at full-load operation.

perhaps Regulate should be examined:

reg·u·late

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1.to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2.to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

Origin:
1620–30; < Late Latin rēgulātus (past participle of rēgulāre ). See regula, -ate1

Related forms
reg·u·la·tive [reg-yuh-ley-tiv, -yuh-luh-tiv] Show IPA , reg·u·la·to·ry [reg-yuh-luh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA , adjective
reg·u·la·tive·ly, adverb
an·ti·reg·u·la·to·ry, adjective
mis·reg·u·late, verb (used with object), mis·reg·u·lat·ed, mis·reg·u·lat·ing.
non·reg·u·lat·ed, adjective

Synonyms
1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set. 4. systematize.

— vb
1. to adjust (the amount of heat, sound, etc, of something) as required; control
2. to adjust (an instrument or appliance) so that it operates correctly
3. to bring into conformity with a rule, principle, or usage

regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

[geckosfeet]

39. Well there ya go. Good one.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

40. yeah -

I try -but- I just can't be a Smart Ass All The Time.

[jpak]

44. As in "a well regulated militia"

yup

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

45. ...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

47. I like it when the militia of my castle is in good working order. yup!

[marybourg]

31. . . . FALSELY shout fire.

You certainly can shout "fire" if there is a fire.

[virginia mountainman]

34. YES, you can...

Do we sew peoples mouths shut so they CANNOT shout fire?? Or do we punish them AFTER they shout fire??


Gun Control punishes people who do NOT break the law... Lets apply that standard to "shouting fire", and sew up everyones mouths as they enter theaters, because someone MIGHT shout fire....

[geckosfeet]

35. Point taken. But at one time 1A restrictions were not on the books.

If you cause injury and harm to public safety through your speech you will be prosecuted.

There are many firearm laws that are intended to prevent trafficking and straw sales. These are crippled and circumvented in many cases through lack of background checks. Why not try and reduce straw sales? One thing that may help is to require background checks. And if we think real hard we can probably come up with other ways to address black market sales.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

41. and ---

If you cause injury and harm to public safety through your RKBA you will be prosecuted.

on edit:
can you talk more about background checks and how you would like them to work. thanks.

[geckosfeet]

42. Personally I wish there was no need for background checks. However....

In order to TRY and make it more difficult for firearms to find their way into the hands of criminals and people who are otherwise disallowed from possessing them, I can think of nothing aside from some kind of point of sale/transfer check on the buyer. This does not of course, preclude the buyer from having firearms "stolen" or otherwise lost on a regular basis. But if this pattern shows up on ATF radar at least they have something to look at, even if serial numbers are ground off.

Take the recent shootings in Webster NY for example. A simple straw purchase leads to the death of firefighters at the hands of a seemingly deranged person. The sad thing is, I do not know how background checks would prevent something like this from happening.