Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.The Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. In striking down Washington D.C.'s handgun ban by a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in D.C. v. Heller held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, whether or not associated with a state militia.
The ACLU disagrees with the Supreme Court's conclusion about the nature of the right protected by the Second Amendment. We do not, however, take a position on gun control itself. In our view, neither the possession of guns nor the regulation of guns raises a civil liberties issue.
I find it fascinating that the ACLU cites Miller as support for their view. And, I love it when they describe the Heller decision as "a 5-4 vote." That more accurately describes what happened than what you might read in the comments of this blog.
What's your opinion?
Miller in no way supports a "collective rights" view of the
ReplyDelete2A Mike.
As I said before, read my post about that case and READ THE DECISION FOR YOURSELF.
All nine Justices said the 2A is an individual Right.
ReplyDeleteFact.
They simply split on whether the DC ban was a violation of that individual Right.
"They simply split on whether the DC ban was a violation of that individual Right."
ReplyDeleteWhich in itself is really sad, since those 4 basically said that while it's an individual right it's also meaningless.
They applied the "rational basis" test to a specifically enumerated right in the BOR, which is both unusual and bat-shit insane.
. . . describe the Heller decision as "a 5-4 vote."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, a 55.55% to 44.44% margin, or in still other words, a stronger majority than Obama's 52% to 46% popular vote margin. That's without even bothering to remind you (yet again) of the fact that SCOTUS was unanimous in dismissing the silly "collective rights" interpretation of the Second Amendment.
I'm still wondering when MikeB is going to produce his evidence that the FBI deliberately fudged their numbers as he claimed they did.
ReplyDeleteMikeB please refer to the US Code, in regards to what a militia is.
ReplyDeleteMikeB please refer to the US Code, in regards to what a militia is. Actually let me pull it up for you.
ReplyDelete10 USC Sec. 311 01/08/2008
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.
(ref:http://uscode.house.gov/uscode-cgi/fastweb.exe?getdoc+uscview+t09t12+174+0++()%20%20AND%20((10)%20ADJ%20USC)%3ACITE%20AND%20(USC%20w%2F10%20(311))%3ACITE)
Now I know you will brush this off since it says nothing about "a well regulated militia." In order to be regulated all a group needs are set rules or standards.
Hello mike --following you at Mudrake's --and saw the wonderful AIG stuff. However, I, too, didn't like the boy with gun image --not because it suggested that atheism produces killing but because it could confirm to someone that no one matters to anyone else , not even God, so you might as well off yourself. I felt it would be depressing to those who despair --but if you watched the rest of the segments linked on the first one, I found them really uplifting --for anyone. Except someone like Mudly who hates a positive Christian witness.
ReplyDeleteOf course the opening is attention getting and would make atheists look further for material to criticize --and I think it was hard to find more to criticize in the U tube segments.
Kaveman said, "All nine Justices said the 2A is an individual Right.
ReplyDeleteFact.
They simply split on whether the DC ban was a violation of that individual Right."
I'm afraid I don't understand that. Would you mind explaining? It sounds almost like it's the same thing. The question of whether a person has an individual right and whether the DC ban violates it sounds like the same thing.
Thirdpower said, "I'm still wondering when MikeB is going to produce his evidence that the FBI deliberately fudged their numbers as he claimed they did."
ReplyDeletePutting words in my mouth and exaggerating what I say and then repeating it over and over again is a shabby trick.
I've made no such claim. What I said about the FBI stats and all others is that they need to be taken with a grain of salt. All the stats we keep throwing back and forth are liable to be biased. That's what I always say. Right or wrong, that's a far cry from saying I claimed they fudged the numbers.
Don't numbers speak for themselves --if not fudged?
ReplyDeleteWhy do you need to moderate comments?
ReplyDeleteI know Mudrake does because he doesn't want to give space to anything well-written to oppose his views.
"All the stats we keep throwing back and forth are liable to be biased."
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you accept the stats from the Brady Bunch and the VPC without question.
Barb asked, "Why do you need to moderate comments?"
ReplyDeleteYou must have missed the dust-up we had a month or so ago. A couple of the commenters were resorting to personal attacks instead keeping the discussion fair. I wrote another commenting policy and still they persisted. That's why I started moderating. Believe it or not, I don't delete any comment unless it violates the guidelines of my policy.
BTW MikeB,
ReplyDeleteYou blatantly dismissed the FBI statistics w/o ANY evidence to support it. You know you did and any attempt to deny it is just blatant disingenuous on your part.