Breyer: "Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns"

[oldman45]

Here is an article from FOX today about how the ruling on Heller could have gone.

Just one more appointment and things may change.

Breyer: Founding Fathers Would Have Allowed Restrictions on Guns - FoxNews.com

 

[Dogguy]

Interesting outlook on the inclusion of Amendment II. However, Breyer fails to address the fact that despite Madison's reservations, Amendment II was included, was ratified and became part of the Constitution.

I thought he took an oath to that document when he became a judge. Instead, I guess he just decided to take scissors to it.

 

[cp1969]

Good Lord, what an educated idiot.

The damage that people like him, from the Ivy League, have done or would do to the Constitution, if left unchecked, is practically unfathomable.

They talk about wanting diversity on the Court, yet every one of them is from the same two law schools--Harvard and Yale.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

While Mr. Breyer may be of the opinion that some (or all) of the founding fathers would have allowed governmental restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, what Mr. Breyer has not taken into consideration is that (1) many, perhaps most, of the states would not have ratified our Constitution without the Second Amendment in substantially the form we know, and (2) many, perhaps most, of the citizens of the new United States would have refused to comply with any restrictions on their RKBA circa 1789-1792 when the Constitution was ratified, coming so closely after the experiences of King George's rule and the Revolutionary War.

This appears to be another example of the differences between strict constructionists' understanding of the Constitution as an absolute restriction on the government, as opposed to the desires of some to continually re-interpret the Constitution to mean what they would want it to in pursuit of present-day policy decisions.

Judges, as well as all other elected and appointed federal officials, are sworn to uphold, support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, too many cannot differentiate between the clear language of the Constitution at the time of its adoption, their individual understandings of the Constitution, and their wishful interpretations of Constitutional provisions.

Therein lies the real problem. They all swear the same oath, having the same clear meaning to most of us, then many attempt to impose their interpretations of that which they have sworn to uphold, support, and defend. For this type of person there is no oath that has any real meaning beyond that which they decide to apply, just as no provision within the Constitution has any real meaning other than that which they choose to accept at any given time or under any given set of circumstances.

A nation cannot exist under the rule of law when the law can be continually re-interpreted to mean anything one wishes for it to mean. Since the Constitution is the underlying foundation of all law, continually adjusting its meaning and application has the unavoidable effect of making all laws vague and meaningless, except within the context that government wishes to apply those laws.

Continually shifting a house on its foundation does not make for a very sturdy house.

 

[oldman45]

Lobo, I agree with you. Great minds think alike.

Yet we must remember that Mr Breyer is entitled to his belief as well. Just as you and I have our interpretation, so does he and others. We have a few million on our side, he has a few million on his side.

Let another liberal Justice be appointed, especially as the last one was, and the court can vote 5-4 on their side.

I am sure you know why and how the latest Justice was nominated and appointed.

The Senate was not taken over by conservatives during the election, it was the House. The Senate confirms a Supreme Court nominee. We are just one retirement or death away from a liberal Supreme Court.

 

[handejector]

2A issues go in the 2A area (whodathunkit?)
I'll move this one.
I also appreciate factual titles related to the topic at hand.

 

[badguybuster]

Lobo, that was exceptionally well stated. Props to you.

 

[Frailer]

...I also appreciate factual titles related to the topic at hand.

Thanks for that.

 

[Gun 4 Fun]

Here's another hooray for LOBO!

Well spoken and accurately stated.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Here's another hooray for LOBO!

Well spoken and accurately stated.

Thank you, Gun 4 Fun. As Mr. Bill O'Reilly might say, I was feeling loquacious! I think that I hit all the high points in describing the differences between conservative strict constuctionist interpretation of our Constitution as written and in light of the late 18th Century, as opposed to the Modern American Liberals' view of a "living Constitution" that must be constantly re-interpreted to meet every situation that arises in a compassionate and caring way.

Modern American Liberalism exists primarily as a means for the self-perceived M.A.L. to believe that he is morally and intellectually superior to the common man. Unfortunately, too many M.A.L.'s take the next step, which involves imposing their morally and intellectually superior judgement upon their lesser beings. Not that they don't care what we believe, but their condescension and contempt for the common (non-M.A.L.) man just don't enter their minds. They truly believe that they have a duty to impose their better judgement on us for our own good.

Beware the man who would force you to do what he believes to be best for you. That is the pathway toward serfdom.

Never allow yourself to accept a "higher moral authority" without questioning the source, and its plans for your future.

There are many who seek to rule over us. Most of them truly believe that they will be good rulers, but they intend to be rulers. Most will promise to do what is best for us, but they fully intend to remain in control over us.

The best government is the least government. The best society, and the most peaceful society, is a well-informed and well-armed society.

The government that can provide you with everything you need and want can also take away everything you have.

Here endeth the lesson.

Best regards to all.

 

[ladder13]

Awesome summation of the liberal ideology, Ray.

 

[Gamecock]

Mr. Breyer is a liar. Federalist 29 quite clearly states why
citizens should have guns (and it ain't about target shooting!).

Here's what's freaky about it in current events:

What if Obama's healthcare law required every American to buy a gun? How'd you feel about that? | Top of the Ticket | Los Angeles Times

Cuccinelli argued, "What if the government ordered you to
buy a gun?" Uhhh . . . bad move, Cutch. According to
Federalist 29, they can. He needs to pick something else
to consider the government forcing you to purchase. He
managed to pick the ONE bad example.

Joe

 

[10ring]

There was a time when most sitting Supreme Court Justices understood they should not be writing books, doing interviews, stating their personal beliefs on topics they may later have to decide or griping about the outcomes of cases they were part of, and certainly not be trying to influence public opinion. That seems to be changing.

The Supremes were (and in my mind are) expected to wait until the day they retire to start pimping their books and whining about cases on which they were in the minority. Breyer and Scalia are two prime examples of this new trend and Breyer has a book to pimp. I suppose he will be on a signing tour soon.

Nothing legally can stop them from making public comments, but it reflects poorly on their character and their true understanding of their role in our government. They are supposed to be wise men and women protecting the integrity of our nation and not influenced by public opinion, book royalties or whether they can get some free air time.

Now that Breyer has made his personal beliefs and biases known, as well as his concern for what historians will write about him on the subject, I assume he will do the honorable thing and recuse himself from all future 2nd amendment cases that come before the Supreme court. Yeah, right.

 

[jtpur]

Bryer is also a Judge who believes international law should be considered when applying our Constitution and the laws of this Nation. let me interpert that for you. A United Nations Gun ban would apply to the United States according to our less than esteemed Justice. He also said, that Obama care should not be decided by the court based on politics. Let me explain that meaning to you. Obama care will be held Constitutional by Bryer because he believes in the all powerful government. All 2A cases are going to be decided by a 5-4 majority. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito will be for 2A Rights. Bryer, Sutter, Ginsberg and Stevens will side against those rights. The unknown is how does Kennedy feel on any given day?

 

[Poohgyrr]

In public school years ago, I learned there was something called a Constitutional Convention. Each colony sent their representative, with their version of what the Constitution should be. Then all these guys hammered out a Constitution; the one we have now, minus some of the Admendments. I read most of those drafts several years ago.

It might be interesting to notice how many Colonies included their own version of the 2nd Admendment; and how much longer these drafts of the 2nd are.

They go into quite a bit of detail, explaning that people have the right to own and carry guns. Absolutely no doubt at all about this.

The need for personal defense, for everything from common robbers to an oppressive government, was the basic reason for being armed.

The final version of the 2nd Admendment is much more concise than what the individual Colonies wrote in their own versions of the Constitution.

My opinion, but the words are simple enough to understand.

Haven't even discussed the old DCM program either.........

 

[oldman45]

In public school years ago, I learned there was something called a Constitutional Convention. Each colony sent their representative, with their version of what the Constitution should be. Then all these guys hammered out a Constitution; the one we have now, minus some of the Admendments. I read most of those drafts several years ago.

It might be interesting to notice how many Colonies included their own version of the 2nd Admendment; and how much longer these drafts of the 2nd are.

They go into quite a bit of detail, explaning that people have the right to own and carry guns. Absolutely no doubt at all about this.

The need for personal defense, for everything from common robbers to an oppressive government, was the basic reason for being armed.

The final version of the 2nd Admendment is much more concise than what the individual Colonies wrote in their own versions of the Constitution.

My opinion, but the words are simple enough to understand.

Haven't even discussed the old DCM program either.........

OK, I agree and am likely the most Pro 2nd of all those here.

Yet, we have to look at the type guns they had back then and what is available now. Even I disagree with someone walking around with three guns on their person, 120 rounds of ammo and a four inch hunting knife on their belt.

Does the 2nd give us the right to own an anti aircraft gun? What about a Sherman tank? Maybe a Cruise missle? I do not think the 2nd gives unlimited arms protection. Where it would stop is anyone's guess but the liberals would love to see us revert back to single shot muzzle loaders.

Night before last, I was eating in a restaurant with several others. A group came in that was fairly rough looking. One had a Glock in a holster on each side and had the rest of his belt lined with mag carriers. He may have been returning from a range but none of the others appeared to be armed. All of them were drinking. I was armed and mentally pro 2nd but this sight disturbed me. A scruffy man, armed with multiple weapons and ammo, sitting with a group drinking alcohol. I can imagine what any anti gunners, if there were any, thought of this.

 

[Gamecock]

Night before last, I was eating in a restaurant with several others. A group came in that was fairly rough looking. One had a Glock in a holster on each side and had the rest of his belt lined with mag carriers. He may have been returning from a range but none of the others appeared to be armed. All of them were drinking. I was armed and mentally pro 2nd but this sight disturbed me. A scruffy man, armed with multiple weapons and ammo, sitting with a group drinking alcohol. I can imagine what any anti gunners, if there were any, thought of this.

Freedom involves risk; get over it.

In Switzerland, people have HOWITZERS in their homes, and, yes, AA
guns.

Joe

 

[LoboGunLeather]

OK, I agree and am likely the most Pro 2nd of all those here.

Yet, we have to look at the type guns they had back then and what is available now. Even I disagree with someone walking around with three guns on their person, 120 rounds of ammo and a four inch hunting knife on their belt.

Does the 2nd give us the right to own an anti aircraft gun? What about a Sherman tank? Maybe a Cruise missle? I do not think the 2nd gives unlimited arms protection. Where it would stop is anyone's guess but the liberals would love to see us revert back to single shot muzzle loaders.

Night before last, I was eating in a restaurant with several others. A group came in that was fairly rough looking. One had a Glock in a holster on each side and had the rest of his belt lined with mag carriers. He may have been returning from a range but none of the others appeared to be armed. All of them were drinking. I was armed and mentally pro 2nd but this sight disturbed me. A scruffy man, armed with multiple weapons and ammo, sitting with a group drinking alcohol. I can imagine what any anti gunners, if there were any, thought of this.

It sounds to me like your local vice & narcotics squad chose to eat in the same restaurant that you selected. Been there, done that.

Seriously, "rights" are just that; inalienable and applicable to all citizens without regard to race, creed, color, religion, appearance, or any other factor. Every attempt to impose "common sense" restrictions places us on the slippery slope toward government control, turning rights into privileges to be exercised only with permission.

The historical record of "gun control" dates back to the days of slavery, when certain people were not permitted weapons without permission of their owners. Following emancipation, many states enacted permit schemes with the primary intent of keeping certain groups and types of people from exercising individual rights under the Second Amendment. It took the 14th Amendment to bring full application of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to all of the states.

To repeat the point for emphasis: ALL ATTEMPTS AT GUN CONTROL HAVE RACISM, FEAR, AND ELITISM AS A CORE ELEMENT.

As for the argument about modern weapons (anti-aircraft guns, missiles, etc), the best response I have heard is that our Second Amendment guarantees cover the types of weapons in common use by individuals when acting in defense of life, liberty, community, and country. Weapons that generally require more than one person to operate (crew-served pieces) require common controls (i.e.: militia unit, national guard, military unit, etc). Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, cruise missiles, etc) have always been closely controlled, and no sensible person would suggest that individual ownership, control, or use would fall under the Second Amendment's protections of individual liberties.

While your post indicates that you are sincere in the belief that some forms of restriction are for the common good, I suggest that such beliefs are inherently dangerous to individual liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Best regards.

 

[jtpur]

It sounds to me like your local vice & narcotics squad chose to eat in the same restaurant that you selected. Been there, done that.

Seriously, "rights" are just that; inalienable and applicable to all citizens without regard to race, creed, color, religion, appearance, or any other factor. Every attempt to impose "common sense" restrictions places us on the slippery slope toward government control, turning rights into privileges to be exercised only with permission.

The historical record of "gun control" dates back to the days of slavery, when certain people were not permitted weapons without permission of their owners. Following emancipation, many states enacted permit schemes with the primary intent of keeping certain groups and types of people from exercising individual rights under the Second Amendment. It took the 14th Amendment to bring full application of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to all of the states.

To repeat the point for emphasis: ALL ATTEMPTS AT GUN CONTROL HAVE RACISM, FEAR, AND ELITISM AS A CORE ELEMENT.

As for the argument about modern weapons (anti-aircraft guns, missiles, etc), the best response I have heard is that our Second Amendment guarantees cover the types of weapons in common use by individuals when acting in defense of life, liberty, community, and country. Weapons that generally require more than one person to operate (crew-served pieces) require common controls (i.e.: militia unit, national guard, military unit, etc). Weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, cruise missiles, etc) have always been closely controlled, and no sensible person would suggest that individual ownership, control, or use would fall under the Second Amendment's protections of individual liberties.

While your post indicates that you are sincere in the belief that some forms of restriction are for the common good, I suggest that such beliefs are inherently dangerous to individual liberties, as guaranteed by our Constitution.

Best regards.

Well said, and I could not agree more. I was also thinking the guy with the guns and mags was a local cop. I seem to recall saying once that I am annoyed that cops today dress more like the trash they arrest than the officers and office they represent.

And yes there are individuals who do own tanks, machine guns and other crew served weapons. some of those owners rent their equipment to television and movie companies, some have thos weapons in displays at historical museums. "Well regulated" means "Regulations" not outright bans. So far the only Right enumerated by our Constitution that requires a permit or license is our 2nd and I see nothing in that document that allows for the denial of our rights. Sometimes the Constituion gets in the way of Government action....how silly of our framers to do that.....

 

[NFrameFred]

I maintain and always have that the archaic language used in the amendment (wasn't archaic when they wrote it) is largely responsible for giving these pin heads apoplexy about a "well regulated militia".

I think there is ample evidence if you study the language/terms in use at the time to make the case that to them, "well regulated" meant well practiced and guns properly sighted in. Gunsmiths still use the term "regulate" even today when talking about adjusting the point of impact on a shotgun barrel or muzzleloader.

A "well regulated" militia, being necessary to the security of a free state meant citizen soldiers who knew their weapons, practiced with them, and could hit what they aimed at because they practiced and the guns were sighted in. It did not mean the kind of "regulation" that libs go orgasmic over thinking it opens the door for them to control the people.

Some people are educated beyond their intelligence . . . .