To keep and bear arms.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/w…

Having read the Heller decision, in its’ entirety, I now attempt comment. There are several things which could be said which I will omit, and thank another writer for addressing. This in deference to brevity and because I cannot catch every single mistake, now can I?

On Justice Bryers’ dissent:

Clarifying the Boston Fire Regulation:

It is apparent the Justice has not considered the problems associated with loose gunpowder. Problems common then, and uncommon now. This for two reasons. Ammunition is now made with fireproof brass shells to protect the powder. This means you can drop a cigarette into a pile of ammo, and then casually retrieve the cigarette. Second, when loose powder is sold these days it is sold in fire-resistant containers. Because of these two facts, the problem the Boston regulation addressed no longer exists. Nor does the motive to solve it. And therefore the restrictions that were reasonable then are unreasonable now. Because there is no longer a reason for them. With this in mind perhaps the Justice might reconsider.

On page 25 of his dissent Justice Bryer says,”There is no cause here to depart from the standard set forth in Turner, for the District’s decision represents the kind of empirically based judgment that legislatures, not courts, are best suited to make.” I disagree, because the amendment contains the clause, “Shall not be infringed.” The word infringed has a particular meaning, with which the Founders must be assumed to have been familiar. I draw to the Justices attention the Period immediately after the word infringed. It is not a comma. And after it, there is not a wiggle word. There could have been. The Justice may even be correct in supposing there should have been. But there isn’t. With this in mind, the Justice might wish to reconsider.

On general tone, there is unmistakably the odor of the ossified idea that depriving the compliant of the means to resist will somehow deter those who depredate upon their fellows. I think it might help if the Justice would leave the confines of the Ivory Tower once in a while. I am certain the Justice means well, but it is irritating to have to endure problems created by well meaning men perched in Ivory Towers.

Justice Stevens dissent opens with an odd, pointedly irrelevant sentence. “The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.”” The Justice is quite correct, that is NOT what this case is about, because the distinction is artificial. All Constitutional rights are individual rights. And all of them are also collective in nature in that they belong to every individual. Including citizens of other countries.

After that inexplicable exercise, the Justice returns to the point.

“The Second Amendment plainly does not protect

the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that

it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain

military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to

possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting

and personal self-defense is the question presented by

this case.” Wonderful. Very clear.

Then he goes off track again, supposing the Amendment has something to do with the sovereignty of the States, when the clear text refers to the right of the People to keep and bear arms and not to the right of the States to do so, or to call upon the People to do so on the States’ behalf. The Justice goes further, declaring there exists in the Constitution no right to self defence, whether it is through use of guns or even pepper spray. But, glancing at my copy, I see that Life and liberty bear prominent mention. As well, there is mention of a right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure (For and Of guns), or from being deprived of life (being disarmed), liberty (to posses arms) or property (weapons), or from ones property being turned to public purpose (confiscated) without just compensation (willing buyer + willing seller = just), and a mention of a right to a jury trial in matters worth more than twenty dollars. And there is the ninth and the tenth. All of which added together is what Mr Lincoln called Government of, by and for the People. And the Justice finds in this no inkling that the underlying theme is a common plan to further the protection and preservation of all of our lives? A mutual self defense pact? The Justice shows rare courage in supposing the primary goal of not just every man, but of every creature is NOT to preserve his/her/it’s own life come what may. The justice shows even more impressive character to attempt to deprive man of the most appropriate means to that particular end, knowing it will not be the worst who will comply first… if any do. I would suggest to the Justice that the second half of Amendment Seven enshrines the common law along with the right to self defense in the United States Constitution. I have always  considered this a mistake, as the common law accumulated under a Crown, who enjoyed immunity to the law, while We the People are not immune to the law, and deposed he who was. The common law is not really appropriate to a democratic society. But, nevertheless, there it is. I suggest the Justice might, with this in mind, reconsider.

Eleven pages later, we arrive at the bone of contention. It receives the following treatment ;

“”To keep and bear Arms”

Although the Court’s discussion of these words treats them as two “phrases”-as if they read “to keep” and “to bear”-they describe a unitary right: to possess arms if needed for military purposes and to use them in conjunction with military activities.

As a threshold matter, it is worth pausing to note an oddity in the Court’s interpretation of “to keep and bear arms.” Unlike the Court of Appeals, the Court does not read that phrase to create a right to possess arms for “lawful, private purposes.” Parker v. District of Columbia, 478 F. 3d 370, 382 (CADC 2007). Instead, the Court limits the Amendment’s protection to the right “to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Ante, at 19. No party or amicus urged this interpretation; the Court appears to have fashioned it out of whole cloth. But although this novel limitation lacks support in the text of the Amendment, the Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia.”

That is about as far as that can be taken. The justice asserts my right to be called out, lined up, marched forward, and then on order kill for the State…no questions asked… while denying my right to defend myself at need with the most likely tool.

I wonder who the hell he thinks he is. His assertion refutes itself when one considers that the Constitution was written to be apprehensible to the common man, who was then considerably more common than he is now. With the confidence provided by this consideration a common man may read the words himself, and see what they say. So let’s.

The word right means prerogative, in context of the Bill of Rights it means prerogative preexisting (not granted by) the Constitution. The word keep means own. The word bear means carry. The word infringe means To fail to fulfill (a promise) or conform to (a regulation): breach, break, contravene, transgress, violate. The reference to the Militia is token to the fact that the State relies on the Militia to protect it – which the militia cannot do if its’ members are not familiar with arms.

The dissenting opinions strike me as ridicules. Which is not to say I am completely satisfied with what the majority had to say. It wasn’t bad, for a first step, but, as each Justice seemed to be aware, there is more to it than that, as Justice Stevens pointed out on page 33 of his dissent, by quoting at length a passage from Justice Story (1833) previously alluded to by the majority, which I ask the reader to carefully review. To my eye, it completely destroys the foundation of Justice Stevens dissent and all by itself should suffice to render this Supreme Court decision incontrovertible.

“The importance of [the Second Amendment] will

scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected

upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence

of a free country against sudden foreign invasions,

domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of

power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free

people to keep up large military establishments and

standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous

expenses with which they are attended and the

facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled

rulers to subvert the government, or trample

upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens

to keep and bear arms has justly been considered

as the palladium of the liberties of a republic, since it

offers a strong moral check against the usurpation

and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even

if these are successful in the first instance, enable the

people to resist and triumph over them. And yet,

though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance

of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable,

it cannot be disguised that, among the American

people, there is a growing indifference to any

system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition,

from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations.

How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed

without some organization, it is difficult to see. There

is certainly no small danger that indifference may

lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus

gradually undermine all the protection intended by

the clause of our national bill of rights.” 2 J. Story,

Justice story contemplates what might happen should evil overtake the nation, leaving no State for the Militia to protect. The only hope the People would have on that day will be found within themselves. Should they know not weapons, what then shall be their fate?

I am reminded of the time, twenty four centuries back, when a Half Million Persians demanded of Ten Thousand Greeks their arms. The Greeks thought about that for a tenth of a second, then declared they could do the Great King no favors without their arms, nor could they do much for themselves, that therefore they would not surrender their arms but allowed that the King could if he wished try to take them. The Greeks then waded through the Persians, and then the Armenians, until they came to the Black Sea, where they took ship. Two thirds made it home again. Had they given up their arms not one would ever. And that assuming any survived day one.

It may be interesting, or perhaps simply ironic, to note the different forms the two cultures honored. The Greeks were Democratic. Each fighting man had a vote and together they made up the State. When they found themselves out in the middle of the Persian Empire, they immediately voted, and then did what they decided. It was all very organized. The Persians by contrast were organized from above. Of the several effects of this the most noticeable was the inflation of the ego of the Great King. This, it turns out, was not an advantage.

History shows that our political traditions derive from the Greeks. I have always been very pleased by that. It is therefore with some dismay I note that four of the sitting Supreme court Justices would seem to prefer it otherwise.