Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban, Upholds Right to Keep and Bear Amrs

[mont974x4]

They've never said that, dude. Are you intentionally making a false statement or just ill informed?

neither. It is an observation of how they make their decisions and redistribute the power given to people as individuals, and the states, so that they end up giving away the farm to the fed government.

 

[SaintGeorgeTucker]

The fundamental principle of construction adopted in D. C. v. Heller was cherry picked by the five activists from United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931).

In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931)

--D. C. v. Heller​

Since the five activists believe that it is the controlling authority on the principles of Constitutional interpretation, let's take a closer look at the case of UNITED STATES V. SPRAGUE. Here's the paragraph from U. S. v. Sprague opinion from which the activists claim to have obtained the principle.

The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 30; Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1; Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Craig v. Missouri, 4 Pet. 410; Tennessee v. Whitworth, 117 U. S. 13; Lake County v. Rollins, 130 U. S. 662; Hodges v. United States, 203 U. S. 1; Edwards v. Cuba R. Co., 268 U. S. 628; The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U. S. 655; Story on the Constitution (5th ed.) § 451; Cooley's Constitutional Limitations (2d ed.) pp. 61, 70.
​

The Sprague Court was apparently articulating a rule of interpretation it derived from eight previous Supreme Court opinions, a section from Joseph Story's Commentaries and two page from Thomas Cooley's Constitutional Limitations. None of the sources citied in Sprague actually contain a sentence which reads, "The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary, as distinguished from technical, meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition."

The rule espoused in Sprague doesn't exclude the application of other rules when the meaning of a word, term, phrase, clause or other element of language is still dubious after applying the meanings that are normally and ordinarily given to the words. This is just common sense, because many words have more that one normal and ordinary meaning. The word "right", for instance, is commonly used to signify over more than a half dozen intellectual ideas.

The five activists, judging from their snub of the second element of the principle advocated by the Sprague Court, seem to hold the view that words which have more than one meaning don't need further interpretation, which is of course, absurd. The activists, unless they are as dumb as rocks, know that the Second Amendment contains words that are going to still be dubious after applying the normal and ordinary meanings. For example, the normal and ordinary meaning of the word "people" is "persons collectively or in general." Applying that meaning to the word "people" makes the Second Amendment mean "the right of persons collectively or in general to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which just don't sound right.

The activists don't want to be bound by any objective rules or principles when they ascertain the meaning of dubious words in the Second Amendment. They want to be able to give free rein to their personal views and put meanings on the words that will produce the outcome their little activist hearts desire.

 

[NotreDame]

My goodness...

J. Scalia, in the opinion of D.C. vs. Heller, did not seek to understand the 2nd Amendment by any reliance upon the "voters" in 1787 or 1788. J. Scalia was just citing language from a prior case. The relevant language for our purposes is, " its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning."

The italicized language above is entirely consistent with J. Scalia's preferred methodology of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, as espoused in his book, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law." Justice Scalia is a textualist and relies upon Originalism.

Originalism seeks to understand how the U.S. Constitution, or some specific phrase within it, was understood by the public at or near the time of ratification. To accomplish this goal, examination of letters, writings, books, and other correspondence as to what some phrase meant, what the words meant, and so forth is particularly important. This would include but not limited to analyzing dictionaries from the era or near in time, public debates and discourse, letters discussing some part of the U.S. Constitution, what it accomplishes, does not, and so forth.

What J. Scalia looks for is the public understanding and consequently, this does not include secret or technical meanings exclusive to some field or smaller segment of society. Rather, seeking to understand the public understanding is to determine the normal and everyday parlance, unless, of course, the secret and technical meaning has been incorporated into the public understanding, the normal and everyday parlance.

This is precisely what the following says, "its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." This is the rule J. Scalia seeks to follow in his opinion. What the voters understood the words to mean is evidence, a piece of the puzzle, in determining the public understanding, the normal and everyday parlance, just as examining the Federalist Papers and other documents from the era are also pieces of the puzzle, evidence, in knowing what the public understood some word/phrase to mean in the U.S. Constitution.

However, J. Scalia is not limiting his analysis to the voters only and one should not understand the language cited in SGT's post above to be any declaration J.Scalia is doing so. Rather, reading the REST of the paragraph in which the line appears, yes it is always smart to take CONTEXT into consideration, like reading the rest of the paragraph in which a sentence or line appears as guidance to properly knowing what is being stated, J. Scalia tells us he is NOT limiting his focus to the voters' understanding but is going to look to a much BROADER group.

The Second Amendment provides: "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 this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731 (1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824). Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation. (EMPHASIS MINE).

J. Scalia tells us the focus will be ordinary citizens in the founding generation and inlcuded within this larger group is the sub-group of voters, Framers, Founding Fathers, and so forth.

So, it becomes evident J. Scalia is going to seek a public understanding of the meaning of the words from the era and this to look for the normal and everyday parlance something we can reasonably expect ORDINARY people to rely upon, use, and it is the ordinary people who comprise, after all the public; and it is the public understanding we are after here, i.e. how ordinary citizens from the time understood the phrases and words to mean and what they said, which excludes secret and technical meanings.

Now, this is identical to Blackstone's first rule of construction. 1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification; not fo much regarding the propriety of grammar, as their general and popular use.

J. Scalia's rule is, ""its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning. Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.

So, the rule J. Scalia states is to guide his opinion, and that of the majority, is identical to Blackstone's first one. However, whether he actually DID what he said is another debate. (I actually think he did follow his rule).

 

[SaintGeorgeTucker]

J. Scalia, in the opinion of D.C. vs. Heller, did not seek to understand the 2nd Amendment by any reliance upon the "voters" in 1787 or 1788.

Scalia and his little band of judicial activist weren't "seeking" anything but a pretext to graft their personal opinions onto the Second Amendment.

The five activists proclaim the adoption of a great guiding principle of Constitutional construction, then immediately proceed to ignore it, and construe the Second Amendment according to the way Joel Tiffany understood it.

Then the five activists proceed to interpret the phrase, “right of the people", not by putting "normal" and "ordinary" meanings on the words, but by considering the "context" of the phrase. However, they never announced they were adopting a rule of construction regarding "context."

"Context", according to the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made, may be considered, if the meaning of a word is still dubious after applying the usual and most known signification of the word. However, Scalia and his little band of judicial activists didn't adopt the common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

The five activist use, or rather misuse, "context" to make an end run around the usual and most known significations of the words "right" and "people." They probably didn't like the "most known signification" of the word "people", which is " humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers", which points towards a collective right to keep and bear arms.

The Court is using a technique I like to call "switching authorities." When they interpret one word, the controlling authority is the normal and ordinary meanings of words. However, when they interpret the next word, Joel Tiffany is the authority. When they construe the next word, "context" is the authority.

The Court is just using whatever rule takes them to the meaning they want a particular word to have.

 

[eldermike]

There was a time when most 8'th graders knew the constitution did not grant rights to groups. There was a time when they knew the BOR limits government rights, not people.
But I suppose we could use some of this logic and make women vote as a group, only one vote for all of them.........I retract that thought.

 

[mont974x4]

Funny how liberals consider it "activism" to actually stick with what the Constitution/BOR say but have no issue with judges who say that the right to kill the unborn is in the Constitution/BOR when it isn't.

 

[NotreDame]

Then the five activists proceed to interpret the phrase, “right of the people", not by putting "normal" and "ordinary" meanings on the words, but by considering the "context" of the phrase. However, they never announced they were adopting a rule of construction regarding "context."

"Context", according to the well established common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made, may be considered, if the meaning of a word is still dubious after applying the usual and most known signification of the word. However, Scalia and his little band of judicial activists didn't adopt the common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

The five activist use, or rather misuse, "context" to make an end run around the usual and most known significations of the words "right" and "people." They probably didn't like the "most known signification" of the word "people", which is " humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers", which points towards a collective right to keep and bear arms.

The Court is using a technique I like to call "switching authorities." When they interpret one word, the controlling authority is the normal and ordinary meanings of words. However, when they interpret the next word, Joel Tiffany is the authority. When they construe the next word, "context" is the authority.

The Court is just using whatever rule takes them to the meaning they want a particular word to have.

Scalia and his little band of judicial activist weren't "seeking" anything but a pretext to graft their personal opinions onto the Second Amendment.

Yeah well, so you say.

The five activists proclaim the adoption of a great guiding principle of Constitutional construction, then immediately proceed to ignore it, and construe the Second Amendment according to the way Joel Tiffany understood it.

I know this is probably difficult for you to fathom but has the possibility Joel Tiffany had knowledge of the 1790 public understanding of the 2nd Amendment? It is quite possible he did and wrote about it, thereby permitting J. Scalia to reference his work.

Then the five activists proceed to interpret the phrase, “right of the people", not by putting "normal" and "ordinary" meanings on the words, but by considering the "context" of the phrase. However, they never announced they were adopting a rule of construction regarding "context."

Well, context is important and if the prose itself defies an interpretation, then the interpretation is erroneous. J. Scalia referenced other amendments where the phrase "right of the people" is used in such a way as to preclude any connotation it is a "collective" right. Bill of Rights use the phrase "right of the people" two other times, in the First Amendment's Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment's Search-and-Seizure Clause.

The context of the 4th amendment precludes reading the phrase "right of the people" as a collective right at all, but rather common sense dictates it is an individual right. Unless one is seeking to contend the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is only invoked when it is a group of people involved! Now, unless it was common and normal in 1790 to read the 4th amendment phrase "right of the people" to only protect a group of 20 or more from unreasonable search and seizure, there is no evidence such a stupid understanding of the 4th amendment's phrase had such a public understanding in 1790, then there really is nothing left to argue here.

The point J. Scalia is making here is providing a basis in which the words "right of the people" refers to individual rights and on this basis refuting the myth the phrase refers to "collective rights."

However, Scalia and his little band of judicial activists didn't adopt the common law rules of construction existent at the time the Constitution was made.

You are correct, they did not adopt ALL of them. Rather, they merely adopted the first one, the only one really worth anything, and abandoned the others and rightfully so, the other ones are junk and no good when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

The five activist use, or rather misuse, "context" to make an end run around the usual and most known significations of the words "right" and "people." They probably didn't like the "most known signification" of the word "people", which is " humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers", which points towards a collective right to keep and bear arms.

They misused the context huh? Really? How exactly did they misuse the context?

Next, since J. Scalia made a very good argument demonstrating the phrase "right of the people" did not refer to an individual right in the 4th amendment, or the First Amendment if one thinks about it, I am most interested in knowing how you construe it to refer to a collective right? Furthermore, based on your logic, you have just rendered one of the most illogical readings of the 4th amendment.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Well, unless there is a GROUP OF PEOPLE in one house, then this amendment does not accommodate the individual in his home with any protection. Good news law enforcement! The 4th amendment does not preclude you from raiding the homes of people who are alone. So, if there are five people in a house you want to search, wait until four of them leave, and then kick in the doors, because the 4th amendment right does not protect an individual right, only a group right. Well, this is the illogical and non-sense result your reasoning brings us to on this point. Reading the phrase "right of the people" in the 4th amendment as a collective right, a group right, results in the type of absurdity above. Now, if absurdity, non-sense and illogical outcomes are something to be cherished, then you have a fantastic argument and a great point. However, unless we have left earth and entered the twilight zone of illogical reasoning, then reasoning, your type of reasoning, which leads to an illogical and absurd results regarding the 4th amendment are to be repudiated, not embraced.

Yet, this type of non-sense logical reasoning should not be followed. The 4th amendment phrase "right of the people" is not referring to a collective or group right of being free from unreasonable search and seizure. Since it isn't, then J. Scalia has established the phrase refers to an individual right, and if it can refer to an individual right here, then it can as well in regards to the 2nd amendment.

The Court is using a technique I like to call "switching authorities." When they interpret one word, the controlling authority is the normal and ordinary meanings of words. However, when they interpret the next word, Joel Tiffany is the authority. When they construe the next word, "context" is the authority.

Relying upon context is a very good way to understand a text. You are not gaining any points by criticizing the opinion for relying upon context to resolve an ambiguity in the text, none at all. Especially when the context is not susceptible to the mere passage of time. Here, the phrase "right of the people" in the 4th amendment has only one logical, rational, reasonable, and common sense meaning, otherwise the amendment itself makes no sense any other way. Hence, unless the Founding generation had a non-sense and illogical understanding of the 4th amendment, not likely, then context is a great way to resolve the meaning of "right of the people" in the 4th amendment to mean and refer to an "individual right."

Since it refers to an individual right in the 4th amendment, then it may also in the 2nd Amendment, and there has not been any evidence to suggest or indicate otherswise.

When context does not provide an answer, then a focus upon normal and ordinary meaning from the era becomes more paramount. You are not getting anywhere with this "switching authority" approach.

 

[SaintGeorgeTucker]

But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. See F. Dwarris, A General Treatise on Statutes 268–269.

--D. C. v. Heller​

Now the five activists are interpreting the first clause of the Second Amendment according to a rule of construction advocated by an English Lawyer who was born in 1786. Why do you suppose the gang of five judicial activists switched authorities on the rules of constriction from the Sprague Court to Fortunatus Dwarris?

The five activists should have applied the well established common law rules of construction that existed at the time the Constitution was made, which included the following:

...the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament.

...the most universal and effectual way of discovering the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the laws itself ought likewise to cease with it.​

 

[MrJim]

Everytime I see this thread I'm reminded I need to buy more 9mm ammo~~gotta write this down somewhere...

 

[mont974x4]

huntin season is coming
backcountry deer and elk opens Sept 15th and I am planning a men's retreat/outreach/hunting camp for the last week of October



Next week I should get a chance to shoot my new .45 (revolver) for the first time. And I might do a little varmint and rabies control while helping some friends move cows on their family ranch. BTW, I will be driving hundreds of miles with my v-10 powered F-250 crewcab pulling a loaded horse trailer....and Al Gore and kiss my carbon footprint.

Gee I wonder if my time on horesback while moving cows will offset the rest of the trip.

 

[MrJim]

huntin season is coming
backcountry deer and elk opens Sept 15th and I am planning a men's retreat/outreach/hunting camp for the last week of October



Next week I should get a chance to shoot my new .45 (revolver) for the first time. And I might do a little varmint and rabies control while helping some friends move cows on their family ranch. BTW, I will be driving hundreds of miles with my v-10 powered F-250 crewcab pulling a loaded horse trailer....and Al Gore and kiss my carbon footprint.

Gee I wonder if my time on horesback while moving cows will offset the rest of the trip.

.45 Revolver...SA or DA? I'm guessin' Blackhawk..

 

[mont974x4]

nope, not Blackhawk. I used to have a 45 long colt blackhawk but I let my mom shoot and she loved it so I sold it to her. LOL

The one I have now is a single action 45 colt by Stoeger.

 

[eldermike]

huntin season is coming
backcountry deer and elk opens Sept 15th and I am planning a men's retreat/outreach/hunting camp for the last week of October



Next week I should get a chance to shoot my new .45 (revolver) for the first time. And I might do a little varmint and rabies control while helping some friends move cows on their family ranch. BTW, I will be driving hundreds of miles with my v-10 powered F-250 crewcab pulling a loaded horse trailer....and Al Gore and kiss my carbon footprint.

Gee I wonder if my time on horesback while moving cows will offset the rest of the trip.

I have a new friend in SD, next year I hope to get up there to shoot some of those little critters he keeps talking about. My 22-250 needs some time out of the gun safe.

 

[mont974x4]

I don't know what SD charges for out of state hunters, but here in Montana it's a lot.

 

[SaintGeorgeTucker]

Activist Judges Use Old Foreign Law To Interpret U. S. Constitution
​

"‘It is nothing unusual in acts . . . for the enacting part to go beyond the preamble; the remedy often extends beyond the particular act or mischief which first suggested the necessity of the law.’ ” J. Bishop, Commentaries on Written Laws and Their Interpretation §51, p. 49 (1882) (quoting Rex v. Marks, 3 East, 157, 165 (K. B. 1802)).
​

--D. C. v. Heller
​

Did anyone notice that Rex v. Marks was an English case? The five judicial activist are using very old foreign law to interpret the U. S. Constitution.

 

[mont974x4]

You might have a leg to stand if that was the only basis for their decision...and if the founding documents and historical context didn't support our second amendment freedom as individuals.

 

[jcook922]

.45 Revolver...SA or DA? I'm guessin' Blackhawk..

Taking my 870 MM out hunting this winter, California doesn't have much big game, but birds are always plentiful.

 

[MrJim]

Taking my 870 MM out hunting this winter, California doesn't have much big game, but birds are always plentiful.

I had to look that up~Remington 870 Marine Magnum~sounds like a nice gun...all mine have rifling

 

[jcook922]

I had to look that up~Remington 870 Marine Magnum~sounds like a nice gun...all mine have rifling

It's a great weapon, the service uses the M870 variant as it's shotgun of choice.

 

[MrJim]

It's a great weapon, the service uses the M870 variant as it's shotgun of choice.

When I was in the USMC they were gettin' pretty worn out and were scheduled to be replaced with Mossbergs~~only time I saw shotguns were ammo dump guard duty...