SCOTUS says FU gun nuts

[Abatis]

Pseudo-constitutionalists invented the individual right to bear arms in 2008, after 200 years of the concept not existing in American constitutional law.

Both the "militia right" and "state's right" interpretations were "invented" for the federal courts in 1942 at the circuit court level --- Cases v. U.S, 131 F.2d 916 (1 st Cir. 1942) for the "militia right" and U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3 rd Cir. 1942) for the "state's right".

The Supreme Court has always spoken from the individual right interpretation; the Court has never embraced any permutation of any "collective right" interpretation.

You, my poor deluded goofball, are stuck in the 1960's . . . The "debate" over whether the 2nd secures an "individual" or "collective" right is over, the dissents in Heller recognize this.

Breyer said (with Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg joining) (emphasis added):

"The Second Amendment says that: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:

(1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. See, e.g., ante, at 22 (opinion of the Court); ante, at 1 (Stevens, J., dissenting). "​

In case you need help with the math, the five majority Justices and the four dissenting Justices all agree that the right secured by the 2nd Amendment is individual and that "interpretation" has been the singular, constant position of the Court. That it's 9-0 for the individual right is something you should take note of and you should recognize that there's nobody left (of any consequence) who shares your perverted view.

Just for shits and giggles here's what Stevens said (with Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer joining):

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals."​

It time you stepped into the real world . . . Or at least keep up with the current statist leftist authoritarian BS being argued.

 

[Abatis]

Will go down in history with Dred Scott, Plessy, and Lochner.

Thanks for the laugh.

You know, there's a section of Dred Scott that is absolutely true and uncontroversial.

That the Court used it as its reasoning for ruling that Blacks could not be afforded the designation of "citizen" was reprehensible and is to be condemned but that doesn't change the fact that it remains a good accounting of what being a "citizen" means:

"For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."​

A question (since you seem familiar with SCOTUS decisions) . . . Do you consider Griswold's penumbral rights theory at risk because of the attacks on the right to arms / 2nd Amendment?

The reasoning for the Court recognizing penumbral rights is the nature of the rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights, and since Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v Ullman is the foundational premise, and it recognizes the right to arms as a component in the "rational continuum" of liberty, how can a link in the chain be attacked and cut out without weakening the whole?

We see Harlan's dissent elevated to the opinion of the Court in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, 505 U.S. 833, 848 (1992). Justice O'Connor wrote:

"Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U.S. Const., Amdt. 9. As the second Justice Harlan recognized:

'[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . and which also recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted to justify their abridgment.'"​

A question I would like answered by the left-leaning brain trust here; can the anti-gunner hostility for the the 2nd Amendment and gun rights in general, actually call into question the legitimacy of securing the rights to abortion and other reproductive choices or even the gains made in LGBT rights?

A question I don't expect to be answered is this; how can rights that are recognized to exist only in the "emanations" and "penumbras" of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights be MORE respected, MORE vital and MORE secure than a right that is actually enumerated in the Bill of Rights?

 

[Abatis]

Pretty funny when leftie legal experts and even those who throw around the term "pseudo-constitutionalist" abandon their statements, ignore direct questions on legal theory and reject discussion of the law.