Vegas Free-for-All - Shooting on the news L.V 5 dead

Shooting on the news L.V 5 dead

Don

Jun 11, 2014
11:44pm

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Just a guess, but I doubt the founding fathers would see the Cliven Bundy militia as "well regulated".

Neither does DonDiego consider Mr. Bundy and his associates as a well regulated militia.

Nor does he see Mr. and Mrs. Miller, recently of Las Vegas, as a well regulated militia.

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that one need not be a well regulated militia for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to apply. Lower Courts had previously issued inconstant rulings, some stating the right to bear arms is a "collective right" [that of a militia] and some ruling that it is an "individual right" [that of a citizen].

The majority opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008) stated that the Second Amendment comprised "a prefatory clause and its operative clause" and that "the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause". i.e.The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not limited by the "militia" reference.

note i: The Court ruling does not invalidate Federal and State laws which deny firearm possession to individuals for specific reasons. e,g, Reasons You Can Be Denied a Firearms Transfer Perhaps there was sufficient cause to deny Mr. and Mrs. Miller firearms; DonDiego doesn't know details of any criminal history.

note ii: DonDiego has not endorsed the killings in Las Vegas, nor the armed standoff in southeastern Nevada. [In researching this issue, DonDiego has learned that Mr. and Mrs. Miller were at the Bundy Ranch Standoff; the Bundy family directed them to leave, because of their radical views and criminal history. Ref: NY Daily News] He cites the Second Amendment and District of Columbia vs Heller solely to establish that the Government cannot willy-nilly take firearms away from its individual citizens without legal justification.

At least for now one's political affiliation is not a sufficient reason to deny a citizen a firearm. Maybe later.

malibber2

Jun 12, 2014
10:59am

Block User

I agree the conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court recently rewrote the plain meaning of the Second Amendment from the bench to appease the NRA. I'd suggest to you when the founding fathers wrote A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state they intended it to limit the scope as to who the Second Amendment would apply to namely members of well regulated State Militias not individual private citizens. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens just recently wrote a book that discusses this issue in some detail.

Quote

For over two hundred years, federal courts generally interpreted the Second Amendment quite narrowly. In their view, the opening reference to a “well regulated Militia” limited the scope of the amendment. The Second Amendment did not create a freestanding individual right to have guns.

Quote
Well-organized groups, above all the National Rifle Association, rejected this interpretation and insisted that the Second Amendment did indeed create an individual right. For many years, their view was widely regarded as unpersuasive, a form of ideology masquerading as constitutional law. Stevens notes that as late as 1991, even retired Chief Justice Warren Burger—a well-known conservative, appointed by President Richard Nixon—said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Source:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/justice-stevens-refounding-father/

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Just a guess, but I doubt the founding fathers would see the Cliven Bundy militia as "well regulated".
Neither does DonDiego consider Mr. Bundy and his associates as a well regulated militia.

Nor does he see Mr. and Mrs. Miller, recently of Las Vegas, as a well regulated militia.

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that one need not be a well regulated militia for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to apply. Lower Courts had previously issued inconstant rulings, some stating the right to bear arms is a "collective right" [that of a militia] and some ruling that it is an "individual right" [that of a citizen].

The majority opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008) stated that the Second Amendment comprised "a prefatory clause and its operative clause" and that "the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause". i.e.The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not limited by the "militia" reference.

note i: The Court ruling does not invalidate Federal and State laws which deny firearm possession to individuals for specific reasons. e,g, Reasons You Can Be Denied a Firearms Transfer Perhaps there was sufficient cause to deny Mr. and Mrs. Miller firearms; DonDiego doesn't know details of any criminal history.

note ii: DonDiego has not endorsed the killings in Las Vegas, nor the armed standoff in southeastern Nevada. [In researching this issue, DonDiego has learned that Mr. and Mrs. Miller were at the Bundy Ranch Standoff; the Bundy family directed them to leave, because of their radical views and criminal history. Ref: NY Daily News] He cites the Second Amendment and District of Columbia vs Heller solely to establish that the Government cannot willy-nilly take firearms away from its individual citizens without legal justification.

At least for now one's political affiliation is not a sufficient reason to deny a citizen a firearm. Maybe later.

Don

Jun 13, 2014
2:47am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
I agree the conservative judicial activists on the Supreme Court recently rewrote the plain meaning of the Second Amendment from the bench to appease the NRA. I'd suggest to you when the founding fathers wrote A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state they intended it to limit the scope as to who the Second Amendment would apply to namely members of well regulated State Militias not individual private citizens. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens just recently wrote a book that discusses this issue in some detail.

The decision in District of Columbia vs Heller was a 5-to-4 decision. Justice John Paul Stevens authored the dissenting opinion for the minority.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Antonin Gregory Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.. In it Justice Scalia addressed many of the arguments of Justice Stevens.
The interested reader can read it here: Opinion of the Court (it's pretty long, so long that poor old DonDiego did not read it all. Poor old DonDiego is sufficiently aged that he hesitates to purchase green bananas anymore. But it is shorter than Justice Stevens's 192 page book: Six Amendments - How and Why We Should Change the Constitution)

(DonDiego could pr'bly provide the interested reader a link to Justice Stevens's dissenting opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller, . . . but in the words of Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), when asked to fund the National Institute of Health to treat kids with cancer during the Government shutdown: "Why would we want to do that?"}

snidely333

Jun 13, 2014
5:02am

Block User

Quote

Quote

For over two hundred years, federal courts generally interpreted the Second Amendment quite narrowly. In their view, the opening reference to a “well regulated Militia” limited the scope of the amendment. The Second Amendment did not create a freestanding individual right to have guns.

Quote
Well-organized groups, above all the National Rifle Association, rejected this interpretation and insisted that the Second Amendment did indeed create an individual right. For many years, their view was widely regarded as unpersuasive, a form of ideology masquerading as constitutional law. Stevens notes that as late as 1991, even retired Chief Justice Warren Burger—a well-known conservative, appointed by President Richard Nixon—said that the Second Amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,’ on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Source:
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jun/05/justice-stevens-refounding-father/

Quote
Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote
Originally posted by: malibber2
Just a guess, but I doubt the founding fathers would see the Cliven Bundy militia as "well regulated".
Neither does DonDiego consider Mr. Bundy and his associates as a well regulated militia.

Nor does he see Mr. and Mrs. Miller, recently of Las Vegas, as a well regulated militia.

The US Supreme Court has recently ruled that one need not be a well regulated militia for the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms to apply. Lower Courts had previously issued inconstant rulings, some stating the right to bear arms is a "collective right" [that of a militia] and some ruling that it is an "individual right" [that of a citizen].

The majority opinion in District of Columbia vs Heller 554 US 570 (2008) stated that the Second Amendment comprised "a prefatory clause and its operative clause" and that "the prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause". i.e.The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not limited by the "militia" reference.

note i: The Court ruling does not invalidate Federal and State laws which deny firearm possession to individuals for specific reasons. e,g, Reasons You Can Be Denied a Firearms Transfer Perhaps there was sufficient cause to deny Mr. and Mrs. Miller firearms; DonDiego doesn't know details of any criminal history.

note ii: DonDiego has not endorsed the killings in Las Vegas, nor the armed standoff in southeastern Nevada. [In researching this issue, DonDiego has learned that Mr. and Mrs. Miller were at the Bundy Ranch Standoff; the Bundy family directed them to leave, because of their radical views and criminal history. Ref: NY Daily News] He cites the Second Amendment and District of Columbia vs Heller solely to establish that the Government cannot willy-nilly take firearms away from its individual citizens without legal justification.

At least for now one's political affiliation is not a sufficient reason to deny a citizen a firearm. Maybe later.

It is dubious to rely on such history to interpret a text that was widely understood to codify a pre-existing right, rather than to fashion a new one. A. Scalia

Dan Svatass

Jun 17, 2014
4:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: snidely333
I've always struggled with why it matters if the victim lives or dies. The bullet hit and inch or two away from a vital organ and the victim either lives or dies. I don't see why it matters. The shooter made a potentially fatal action. Maybe the victim was closer to a hospital and lived. To me, the punishment should be the same.

I agree completely. The criminal's punishment should not depend on the happenstance of his aim or the skill of the responding ambulance crew.

By the way, when should we expect some evidence that Secretary Napolitano was wrong when her Department reported in 2009 that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States?

Boilerman

Jun 17, 2014
5:33am

Block User

If they voted, they voted Obama.

Quote

Originally posted by: marcisdave
I sure hope Faux, the AM radio psychotalkers, and the NRA are happy.

Let's just cut the bullshit and call this for what it is.

RIGHT WING DOMESTIC TERRORISM.

forkushV

Jun 17, 2014
8:55am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Boilerman
If they voted, they voted Obama.

Sovereign citizen/Cliven Bundy lovin'/gun-humpers were Barack Hussein Obama supporters? Who's dim enough to believe that?

I mean other than jatki.

Dan Svatass

Jun 17, 2014
9:31am

Block User

Looks like American gun-nut kookery has produced another domestic terrorist. Meet Birther, gun nut, antisemite, paranoid conspiracy believer, and Cliven Bundy supporter (of course) Brent Douglas Cole.

According to state and federal police, Mr. Cole shot a California Highway Patrolman and a Bureau of Land Management officer at a campground in the Sierras on Saturday.

As Secretary Napolitano told us years ago, radicalized right wing militias and hate groups remain the greatest domestic terror threat America faces. Why, we see their brethren in these very forums.