All this talk to gun control and baseball brings back memories of the movie Naked Gun. Gotta love that scene where he is the umpire.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

Guys, this has always been a very tough one for me to think through because there is a philosophical side and a practical side.

The frame (era) with which 'the right to bare arms' was written by the founding fathers is much different than it is today. To me the documents (Constitution and Bill of Rights) were meant as living/breathing things. Once this country had been able to get on its own two feet (war of indepen, war of 1812, wilderness 'wars' with Native Americans, etc) and then internal struggle (the Civil War) I am not sure the many of the same concerns our founding fathers had existed any longer. That is why they devised a Supreme Court, to help us out with these problems of how to use the documants depending on what epoch we are in. A BRILLIANT SYSTEM BTW!!!!!!

From that I do (overall) leave a bunch of this up to those guys in the Supreme Court and Appealate Courts, if I have a real problem I will let my elected representatives know.

Honestly, I am not totally sure why we are so hung up on this or why we are so much more violent in terms using guns here in the US. Those are questions you have to ask presently when talking about the Right to Bare Arms. When I see gun toting Sunni militia swimming across the Mississippi River and then coming down my street I will be the first one to greet these fanatics with an M-16 shot straight to the forehead. (from my Army training...exhale...squeeze the trigger gently but QUICKLY, I still remember and ranked way up there in my company in marksmanship). Likeliness of this happening, probably never. Mexico invading us, nah. Canada, sending troops over the boarder, will never happen in my lifetime.

Now, with that said...

I have been held up at gun point, when I worked in retail, a long time ago. Wish I had gun(?), maybe. I am really not sure I would have helped a whole hell of a lot in that situation. Do I have a gun in my house, no (for all you robbers, my address is...). Do I have a nice, hard metal Wilson 7 iron by my bed, yep. Swing at the head, ask questions later, if they are in the door. I keep my alarm system good and paid up. And it did make me stark raving pissed when my car was broken into back in Dec., I have had two cars stolen in my lifetime also. I have ZERO tolerance for criminal activity such as this.

I do know from the 'local' state law in Texas you can carry a gun, it is different in three other states I have lived (CA, NY, TN). The one thing that did impress me when I was a about to move from TX in story about a couple (man + girlfriend) going out the their truck in downtown Austin after being at a club at about 1 am. (This was verified and I read in several papers). When they got to the car there was a young kid trying to break into the vehicle. They chased him down the street and around the corner and had him corner, two against one. They had a gun, a cell phone, and there were two of them. The little thug that was cornered had no gun but just a screwdriver to do his car break-ins. Police patrol that area pretty well (used to work in that area a lot) but no call was made by the couple. They shot the kid in the street while cornered (later died), they did not bother to call and let the police handle the situation and take the kid in; they were going to handle this thing themselves. They were cleared of manslaughter and the court ruled it was self defense. It was very unclear if this was self defense or not, the police were not able to be conclusive on that one.

There is the statute the state of Texas has about carrying a weapon but then there is the mentality behind. The person killed the person, not the gun. Is this a 'Right to Bare Arms' case? Many Americans currently think this case is what our founding fathers meant. I have some problems with that. I do believe there is a 'states rights' vs 'federal law' issue that has to be sorted out too. The mentality of voters in the state of Texas is that they were founded as the Republic or Texas (different from other states) and they can break from the union..and they want to be able to carry firearms in Texas, period (you people reading in Texas have heard this many times, I heard it A LOT while I was there for three years). That is not good or bad but I think it is an important component to this debate.

[quote=cat's meow]That is why they devised a Supreme Court, to help us out with these problems of how to use the documants depending on what epoch we are in. A BRILLIANT SYSTEM BTW!!!!!! [quote]

In the true spirit of this post I will skip over the meat and go to the details. I must disagree with this quote. The Constitution, in my opinion, is not supposed to be living in that the meanings shouldn't change. That is not why the Supreme Court was put in place. That is why we can amend the constitution. The Supreme Court is never given the constitutional power to declare laws unconstitutional or the like. They gave themselves that power in February of 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison. In that decision they set up the legal precedent that they could declare laws unconstitutional (if you want to know all the fine print read it here http://www.pregnantpause.org/court/uncon.htm). If anything, under Article III, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the constitution it says that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make". If anything, it is Congress that can overrule the Court. Now the question is could Congress use this to make "exceptions" for declaring laws unconstitutionality?

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

OK, I cannot disagree but you do have a more 'constructionist view' of what our founding fathers intended and wrote. It is a very good point. But...

And here is where the debate starts. Is a Supreme Court decision the 'law of the land' or a law passed by Congress? both maybe? Who can overturn a law? Take Roe vs. Wade as an example, this is presently considered the 'law of the land' and it was not done through Congress (I am not here to debate validity of the decision, we stay away from that please).

If what you say is absolute ina constructionist way then the law concept of stari decisis would not exist (as per my understanding). It is a widely ageed upon concept when considering our laws, the Consitution, and how things work together between two of the branches of our government (Judicial and Legislative).

Agreed, and you were very right when saying I am a constructionist. I guess what it comes down to is this. I believe that act of the Supreme Court to legislate as some call it from the bench is in itself unconstitutional and on that ground could be struck down by congress. On the other hand, and this is all my opinion here, I believe that since this hasn't happened it remains legal just as I consider the actions of the President are considered legal till determined otherwise by judges or Congress. When it comes to Roe v Wade I consider that law to be unconstitutional because they overstepped their constitutional rights in this ruling. They didn't even use their self given power to declare a law unconstitutional; instead they used their power to declare the lack of a law/right unconstitutional. In my mind that is more of a dictatorial power. Since that law hasn't been challenged and restricted by a constitutional amendment or by Congress saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have power over that, it remains the law of the land. But here is a thought that pro-choice people over look. Roe v Wade has in its legal ruling outlined how abortion can be limited (a gross overstep of the courts power that in my mind would be worthy of impeachment). According to Roe v Wade almost all third trimester abortions could be banned. That part has been overlooked. In my opinion the Supreme Court should have the right to declare laws unconstitutional as outlined by congress. At the same time I find there declaring the lack of a law whether it to be abortion or homosexual marriage to be outrages and a gross violation of the Constitution.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

You are a smart and well read guy...

OK, does what you say make states rights more or less valid. I honestly think there is a serious states rights consideration when thinking about Roe.

But, gun control is at hand and that to me is VERY sticky when considering states rights or federal rights or congressional legislation. When you talk about 'to bare arms' and a construtionist view then we should be able to crack down hard across the country if a David Koresh, Charles Mason, or Tim McViegh moves from state to state with 'guns in the back of the pick-up truck.' In Texas, it is a different matter I think. A court ruling just does not hold up well there bu tin other state it does.

I lived in NY and the big thing there was criminals going inot NJ and buying 'more lethal' automatic weapons. How does this apply to the constitution? It was very sticky problem for NY Gov George Pitaky (sp) and recently AG Elliot Spitzer.

Circa 1945-1975 what is your view on Civil Rights legislation then? Civil rights decisions by the Supreme court?

Well the question must be asked at what point we limit the second amendment. Do we say only hand guns? Automatics? Do we say that my right to bear arms included tanks, fighter jets, maybe even nukes? Obviously not. Also in arms moving between states, one must ask where we draw the line between the Good faith of states. If I have a license to have automatics in one state, can I take them to another? My opinion is that first, you register a gun for one state, you should need approval to carry it in another. But what is considered to be too large? There is no such law saying I can not buy a tank to drive my family around town. According to current practice, constitutional rights may be restricted when you pose a threat to others. You can not release the military strategy of the US invasion of Iraq before the invasion or during the invasion (i.e. Heraldo Rivera). Is such restriction of freedom of speech allowed? Truthfully, I don't know. I know where I want to draw the line, but I can not find a way to back that opinion without court cases that I consider to be legislation. In all reality, I would like to see Congress place the restrictions they want and then have them challenged in court and that is what is happening. As long as the courts keep it case specific, I have no problem with this. They know the law better then I do. The courts must only declare laws unconstitutional if they are a direct violation of the constitution though. If it does not violate very directly, then the law should stand. I’ll let them sort out that mess. In general though, I defer to Congress because if we don’t like it we can vote them out. Do not deny the power of the NRA. As for the Civil Rights movement, that also is messy. First, I strongly support the changes that were made during it. I'm not big on affirmative action, but the civil rights movement against segregation etc, that's all good. Again though, I don't think it was the courts place to make this decision. There was no law in question here. Nothing in writing to be challenged. No law was broken. I do not believe the 14th amendment to ever have been written to abolish segregation, etc. Because of this, the decision should have been made in the legislative branch. That hurts me to say because I agree with the courts ruling of what is right, but there job is not to decide what is right. There job is to decided what is legal. At the time, segregation, etc. was legal.

__________________
"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything." Alexander Hamilton

The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.
Plato

Last one for the night...

Good question. We are back to the interpretion of the Second Amendment and that is the real problem in gun control. You later bring up the NRA and that is one of the greatest problems facing our laws and the protection of the 2nd amendment vs law enforcement (NRA is REALLY well funded). Law enforcement and the AGs who back them up now talk a lot about 'amount of lethal force.' The NRA does not give a second to this concept, any restriction is all the same in thier book. They are coming from a very paranoid interpretation of the Constituation, constructionism is out the window here in my book. Does a gun collector have the right to have an AK-47? I am not sure about that. I think they should be be only in the hands of 'museums' and the armed forces. Your tank analogy is key here... I think an automatic weapon is in the realm (easily) of the tank or a field artilery piece when you are talking about 'lethal force.' The NRA says an automatic weapon is more like a hunting rifle or target pistol. This is a silly argumant to me but the NRA people are very paranoid and militant about their rights being 'whittled away' as per the 2nd amendment. Does not pass the sanity test for me.

Maybe we can meet on another thread as per the Constitution (I wish more people had the 'chops' to understand this and talk about this, they get glassy eyed when I bring this up and why something gets 'screwed' up in American government they can't expain). I have a different view of the Supreme Court and it is very interesting to read what a constructionist has to say that knows what they are talking about. I believe in the idea of stari decisis but that is "the cow out of the barn" for you and should have never got out (I respect that though, very much). Sorry, even with her having a law degree from Michigan you make far more sense than Ann Coulter does on this subject, she may know the written law but the interpretation is...well...I will not go there...thanks

Goodness, I should have kept up with this thread... where do I begin?

NRA: This organization is very well funded. But one must ask, by who? It's memebers? No... it's funded by the gun manufacturers, and not to the direct benefit of it's members, but for the reason of lobbying.

2nd Amendment: The right to bear arms was written in for two very good reasons. First, as a means for common defense against foreign invasion and homeland defense. It could be argued that this is a matter that doesn't apply as much now as it did then. However, if you go back and look at the opinions being bandied about at the Federal Convention of 1787, you will note that in times of peace, any standing army should be reduced to it's smallest possible size so as not to be used by it's government to intimidate the governed. Therefore, the need for a "well regulated militia" was of utmost importance for a ready fallback position should we need to quickly come to the defense of our country. But this end of the issue was the lessor of the two issues discussed concerning the 2nd.

The primary was this... Protection from tyrannical government. And this issue is just as poignant today as it was 230 years ago. These men, through personal experience and a close attention to previous historical governments made the correct assumption that tyranny is the rule rather than the exception. One cannot go back to that time in history, during the creation of these founding documents without tripping over scores of opinion on this matter.

"The Great Experiment" that is often referred to was not the creation nor the style of a republican government. This had been philosopied often throughout history and tried on a few occasions. The principles of a republic were well founded. The experiment was to whether this form of government could survive the eventual tyranny that would inevitably seek to inhabit it. Tyranny seeks power. It must. Otherwise it would not be an issue. Every civilization has been subjected to it no matter the form of government chosen. It was the government that the founders most feared would take away the rights of those that are now free. Not a foreign invader. This is abundantly clear in their opinions. Tyranny knows no era or century, it simply exists.

So here you have gone through all the trouble of fighting a war to recognize the individual sovereign rights of all individuals, but how do you protect them? How do you keep tyranny from getting a foothold? How do you empower the people to be able to stand up to their government should the need arise (and it always has, does and will, for it is the nature of man to seek to rule, not to share rule).

I urge you all to take a very good look at why the founders saw the need to include provisions for an armed populace. It has nothing to do with hunting, protection from nare-do-wells, and little to do with foreign invaders. These men feared government, even the one they went to such great lengths to create. Government is nothing more than principles put on paper. It's the men in government that must uphold them. But it is we that back them up, give them foundation and protection from a few that may wish to remove them for nefarious means.

I will write more on this later...
You'll find the minutes to the Federal convention on the "wisdom of rights" thread. Check them out.

__________________
S.O.S. ------ United We Stand, Divided We Fall

Good last post...OK..I'll go to bed after this short one.

You recognize what I have thought all along and my interpretation of the Supreme Court on this particular issue is to keep us safe from within by recognizing that things change and who had automatic weapons, grenades, tanks...

Personally, the court will have to make rulings on this one to move us ahead to a more sane place on the 'guns' issue because congressional leaders are far to beholden to lobby groups such as gun manufacturers and the NRA. This is where the balance of power comes into play, the high court is the last line of sanity when dealing with these sorts of puzzles.