Fairchild: You Think Gun Rights are Inalienable? Read the Heller Decision

scalia heller opinion

Dick Heller courtesy AP/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Some wonder why lower courts have openly thumbed their noses at the Heller and McDonald decisions over the last decade. Scalia went out of his way to make clear that “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

And that’s why we get proclamations like this . . .

To all who believe that gun rights are inalienable and fundamental and cannot be restricted, please read Justice Scalia’s opinion. It is essentially still the law of the land. It is commonly referred to as the “Heller Decision” or the District of Columbia v. Heller decision. Just Google it, and please read it in its entirety, not just the first section. Please understand that if you truly support our Constitution, you must support both gun rights and reasonable gun violence protections. You can’t proclaim absolute guarantees only on those parts of the Constitution that you like.

– Peter Fairchild, Think Gun Rights are Inalienable? Read Heller.

Let’s see how much New York Rifle State Rifle & Pistol Association moves the ball forward from where Scalia left it.

 

comments

  1. avatar MouseGun says:

    Ah yes, “Moving the Goal Posts”, a favorite of the left.

    1. avatar pg2 says:

      Accusations of “moving the goalposts” is a favorite troll tactic, especially trolls who knowingly post false information and have no other way to back out of their false statements when they’re called out.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

        “…especially trolls who knowingly post false information and have no other way to back out of their false statements when they’re called out.”

        Like claims that vaccines cause autism?

        *snicker* 😉

        1. avatar pg2 says:

          Genius, google Pediatric neurologist Dr. Andrew Zimmerman, a former expert medical witness for the government, until he testified under oath in deposition that YES, vaccines are causing autism. The stupid here is awesome sometimes.

        2. avatar NateInPA says:

          “Dr. Zimmerman admits that there is no evidence that vaccines cause autism, but also believes that there are some exceptions, and that vaccines can cause regressive autism in some kids with mitochondrial disorders.

          Dr. Zimmerman also clarified that it is not just immunizations, but infections, fever, and other inflammatory responses that can lead to regressive autism.”

          So, what the good Dr. was saying is, that in children that have a genetic predisposition for ASD, vaccines may play a roll…but he also says, in those same cases, a common fever could do the same thing.

          Comprehension and understanding…some people lack it.

        3. avatar Kendahl says:

          Aside from autism, which remains to be proven, there are people who cannot be immunized for known medical reasons. Their vulnerability makes it even more important to immunize the rest.

          We don’t want to go back to the times when parents had to give birth to several children so that a couple would survive childhood illnesses.

          Surprisingly, there are a few medical professionals who refuse immunization for themselves even though they would not suffer dangerous side effects. It seems not to occur to them what it would be like to face the wrath of a parent who lost a child to a fatal illness contracted from them.

        4. avatar pg2 says:

          Nate, its common practice when you quote something to actually cite it….while accusing me of reading comprehension deficiencies…priceless. Aside from that , this doctor testified under oath that vaccines can and do cause autism. No matter how much spin you try to put on this, you can’t change it. Same with Dr. Thompson, CDC researcher who admitted committing fraud and burying/altering/destroying data showing a MMR and autism link. Endless spin doesn’t change their words. But thanks for trying to contribute.

        5. avatar JASON Timmons says:

          And change the subject to something that they might have the upper hand on,just because vaccines work (which im not against by the way)does not mean that there is not side effects look how long it took to put a suicide warning on anti depressants like lexapro it took thousands of suicides to make that happen and the only way to know if it is the right kind for you is by trial and error, now back to the point the 2nd is not for hunting,they had guns at the time 2nd was written that shot more than 5 rounds a minute especially since the inventor of one of them was at continental Congress and tried to sell it to the founders,(this is historically documented) Heller proved that it is a individual right,not a govt. power ( powers are what govt.is given by its citizens rights are guaranteed to individuals by the govt. Through powers given to it.) This was all proven by going through historical documents and law books,dictionaries and the federalist papers,besides they knew exactly what they were writting because they were all lawyers ,it is no mistake it is second right after free speach,the two most important rights one gurantees the other ,and the first goves the right to argue for the second like chocolate and peanut butter. Yes you can check to see if someone has lost their right temporarily,until they have paid for their crime,but you cannot ban outright ,it makes sense to nor allo wa them in public places you have negated their original purpose ,of course they dont want you to have them in govt.buildings ,why then you could perform a citizen’s arrest and hold them until a trial by their peers could be done,and when people find out how theyve been screwed over would of course use their rights to take back the powers lent to individuals ,that power is not gurantee that these people do what they want, it is granted in good faith crime with firearms is super low compared to jow many there are here ,really more people die from malpractise ,car wrecks,feet and fists and even on the job accidents than are murdered with a firearm Let alone a l9ng gun which is what they want gone because you cannot field a citizens militia with handguns that have a effective range of 20 feet or so ,but most of the gun crime is committed with handguns,but they only want to ban semi auto rifles? Starting to make sense.

        6. avatar pg2 says:

          Here’s another quote from Dr. Stanley Plotkin, under oath……. Lawyer- “And since there’s no evidence that TDaP or DTaP don’t cause autism, you can’t yet say that vaccines do not cause autism, correct?” Plotkin-“I cannot say that as a scientist or a logician…..”

      2. avatar NB says:

        Can the mods just remove this “PG2” comments? He/she is obviously a troll

        1. avatar Jason Timmons says:

          Must have said something you cant disprove so it must be hidden from societies eyes.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      The Heller opinions weren’t a good thing for 2A rights. They essentially said the government can infringe on the 2nd Amendment, but can’t ban it outright from non government citizens. It created another bad situation that has and will be used against gun owners until another Supreme Court opinion gets rid of the “new law of the land.” Right now we have “the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, however, the government can make reasonable regulations…”

      I figured after Scalia gave his opinion it was actually a bad day for gun owners and it would be used to pass more gun control. At the time gun people thought it was a victory and they jumped for joy. Now everyone can see it wasn’t something to cheer about.

      The government likes to give themselves a way out. They never want to return power back to the people. When they have to give a little they give as little as possible. They feed you crumbs while they eat well.

  2. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

    “To all who believe that gun rights are inalienable and fundamental and cannot be restricted, please read Justice Scalia’s opinion. It is essentially still the law of the land.”

    In about a year, we’ll see about that, asshole.

    Prediction – If the NY Pistol case drastically expands gun rights, the Leftists will respond (when they next control the White House and Senate) with packing SCOTUS with new justices…

    1. avatar Bob Jones says:

      Democrats have already talked about impeaching Thomas and Kavanaugh. Then they will get rid of Gorsuch, Alito and Roberts to make it a 9-0 liberal court. Might be starting by the spring of 2021.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        They can try… Right now, they don’t even have the votes to impeach Trump and won’t for the foreseeable future. That’s the thing, they can talk a big game about “impeachment” but they know that trying to impeach anyone without evidence will be treated as a coup and dealt with appropriately.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You know, somebody should probably educate these jackasses what people who back a coup that fails can expect. Most recently Turkey, but I believe the “wear a wire, invoke the 25th amendment” conversation was suggesting a coup, as well. If we get much more of that shit, I’m going to have to write some letters suggesting the construction of a 2 foot thick concrete wall, around 40 feet long and 10 feet high, on the south lawn of the White House. Perhaps with a built-in pressure washer and a liberty tree beside it. Just so we all understand each other.

        2. avatar CZJay says:

          They already have enough reasons to impeach him rightfully. They don’t want to actually get rid of him in that way. They are simply putting on a show just like Trump with the wall… The simpletons eat it up.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “They already have enough reasons to impeach him rightfully.”

          Those reasons would be which?

          The constitution permits impeachment (accusation/indictment) for crimes (and misdemeanors). The talking head class of jurists and pundits agree that there are no contemporary definitions of what the founders intended, so impeachment is merely a political process.

          So, if there are enough actual crimes (maybe even one), please list. If there are merely political or personal disagreements, then no actual reason is required.

          Just as malicious DAs receive no punishment for misuse of power, so it is with members of the House who frivolously file articles of impeachment.

          Criminalization of the political process is how dictators come to power, and stay there.

        4. avatar NB says:

          They already have enough reasons to impeach him rightfully.

          Sure and there were enough reasons to impeach Obama, Bush, Reagan, Johnson, FDR, etc. rightfully. There is no actual crime at this point to even come close to Senate removal after impeachment though

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        LOL!!!!! Assuming Trump loses reelection (I don’t) and if those things begin in earnest in January 2021, the Civil/Restorative War will already be over by that spring. Our biggest concern as a nation at that point will deciding on what to do with the millions of leftist bodies. Maybe we can build the wall with their bones and mix the mortar with their blood.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh, I’m not concerned, RBG will be dead long before 2020 and Trump will win 2020 in a land slide. The left would have you forget it, but they are at each other’s throats.

        2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          Also, I have no doubt that as 2020 approaches, we will very likely see Thomas step down. There is good evidence on that matter…..
          1) he’s seen the perils of staying too long in the current Ginsberg debacle.
          And most importantly,
          2) Trump’s track record on nominating conservative justices. Of critical importance, Thomas got to see Kennedy hand pick his successor (you’ll remember that Kavanaugh wasn’t on the original “list” of judges, then all of a sudden he’s nominated and was a favorite clerk of Kennedy’s.). Thomas is loathe to have a leftist replace and erase his legacy. He’ll do the right thing with the added benefit of naming his successor (behind closed doors of course).

        3. avatar napresto says:

          Ah yes, the old, “this civil war will be over in weeks,” perspective. Last rolled out in 1861 and proved totally correct, obviously. Civil wars are great, and we should all be hoping for one to kick off as soon as possible! What could go wrong?

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          The geography and demographics are very different in 2020 than they were in 1860. The reality is that solid blue areas are not self-sustaining. There are some amazing discussions on 4chan explaining exactly why the left is a paper tiger.

        5. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          What is “4chan”?

        6. avatar napresto says:

          @pwrserge My point really isn’t about who wins or loses, or whether the left is weak or strong , self sustaining or not… whatever. These arguments are entertaining as a sort of abstract, intellectual exercise. Civil wars in practice, however, are mostly just a great way to murder off innocent people, violate property rights, and end up with totally unanticipated and often dreadful outcomes. I’m always quite dismayed (though not surprised) when people act as though a second civil war here in the US would be no big thing.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          A wretched hive of scum and villainy. It’s great.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          @napresto “Not a big thing”? No. Better than the alternative of letting genocidal socialists like AOC into power? Yes.

        9. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          And how do you figure R.B.G. will kick the bucket well before 2020?

        10. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Speaking of R.B.G., she is worse than a bad dream. I think she is running on pure hatred/venom. I cannot think of any other way to explain her health regimen of strength training, cardiac conditioning, super-healthy dieting, and her mysterious ability to keep fending off malignant cancer.

          My only consolation: I get to laugh at how she could have retired and guaranteed an equally flaming liberal replacement, if only she had retired during Obummer’s tenure before the Republicans took the Senate. I also get to laugh at how all her leftist colleagues “knew” Hillary would win in 2016 which “guaranteed” that she would get a second chance to retire and ensure a flaming liberal replacement. Now, she is quite literally hanging on for dear life — hoping and praying that she can somehow hang on until Democrats take the White House and U.S. Senate again.

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          @uncommon_sense

          Take it from someone who has seen metastatic cancer before. Once it hits your lungs, you’re done.

        12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          pwrserge,

          According to the press reports, surgical staff removed one lobe from one lung which removed all visible (quantity = 2) nodules and they expect R.B.G. to live a long time — which argues that she will be alive and kicking well after 2020.

          Of course we have no idea if we can trust the press reports. And speaking to that point, it has been about 33 days since her surgery which is supposedly plenty of time to recover, even at the age of 85. But, where is she? She is nowhere to be seen as far as I can determine. It doesn’t sound like she is back at work at the U.S. Supreme Court.

        13. avatar Geoff "Just hurry up and *DIE*, RBG..." PR says:

          They got the 2 they could image with radiology. She’s likely *riddled* with tumors too small to see. She was originally going to be out two weeks and back to the grindstone, and she’s 4 days away from being out twice that. LKB says he’s heard she’s very frail, and sheer age alone gives that credence.

          Time will tell, but the odds are getting longer and longer with every day she ever returns.

          Then we will get to see if she keeps her *promise* to retire if she can’t work at 100 percent.

          Democrats keeping promises is like… Fuck it, use your twisted and sick imaginations…

        14. avatar uncommon_sense says:

          Geoff and pwrserge,

          They got the 2 they could image with radiology. She’s likely *riddled* with tumors too small to see.

          If we were talking about some average Joe, sure. However, we are talking about a U.S. Supreme Court Justice — and the Progressives slipping to an even further minority. I’ll bet you a year’s salary that the hospital ran multiple X-rays, CT-scans, PET-scans, MRIs, and who knows what else — and had multiple radiologists and oncologists review the scans. If anything was even remotely detectable, I have to think that they would have seen it.

          Nevertheless, let’s play devil’s advocate and say that she does have multiple tumors too small to detect right now. I’ll bet it will take years for them to end her life, especially given how she could start chemotherapy and radiation therapy. Remember, she doesn’t have to live another 15 years: she just has to live long enough until the Democrats take the White House and Senate, which could happen as soon as two years from now.

        15. avatar NB says:

          The actual odds greatly in favor of Ginsburg living another 22 months. She has top quality medical care.

  3. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    ‘…if you truly support our Constitution, you must support both gun rights and reasonable gun violence protections.’

    Now that’s just plain stupid. If you support our Constitution you should probably support reasonable VIOLENCE protections, not reasonable GUN VIOLENCE protections. Are we going to hand out switch blades to felons getting out of prison to discourage them from using guns or something? Of course not, but we acknowledge that we (the gubmint) are powerless to prevent violent felons from getting their hands on such weapons yet somehow think that they won’t procure a firearm if we tell them ‘no’.

    1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      The flaw in his argument is that nothing the gun grabbers ever propose is a reasonable gun violence protection, because they won’t protect anyone from gun violence (except perhaps for protecting dangerous thugs from being shot by their intended victims, and protecting them is not reasonable).
      A reasonable gun violence law would be one that actually has some plausible likelihood of reducing gun violence, not just the same attempts to ban whatever features are currently out of fashion and slapping a “commonsense” label on the bill.

      1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

        I think you underestimate the lethality of the pistol grip. Especially combined with a coyote killing round like the .223.

        (Yes, that was sarcasm.)

  4. avatar BlakeW5 says:

    “Can’t proclaim only…parts of the constitution you like”. If I’ve ever heard the pot call the kettle black!

  5. avatar Pmac says:

    I believe the NY pistol case can roll back some of the victories the left has enjoyed for too long, but never think for a minute they will fold their tents and go home.

  6. avatar JMR says:

    Yea Scalia got it wrong.

    People, including Scalia, don’t know how our constitution works which leads to people stomping over our rights. The founding fathers would view Scalia as a radical anti-constitutionalist.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      You’re supposing too much. You clearly don’t understand how the sausage is made behind the scenes. Those specific words in Scalia’s opinion may in fact not be his own. I suspect it was included at Kennedy’s insistence in return for his concurrence. Objectively, we know too much about Scalia, and Thomas for that matter, to think they are subversive to the Constitution.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        Defend him if you want, it was wrong, he was wrong, it’s a terrible opinion.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          ‘Heller’ was an incremental win. We’ll see if it can be improved upon.

          The thing is, the conservatives on SCOTUS have now seen how the Leftists have perverted ‘Heller’, and hopefully, will correct some of those shortcomings with the NY Pistol Club case…

        2. avatar NB says:

          Heller was a major win. if not for Heller and McDonald we would have had entire states banning all handguns and all semi autos by now.
          You have to look where we were at that point.

          And Scalia was a genius, he likely maximized what could be done before triggering a Kennedy defection (such a defection would have been a total loss for our side)

    2. avatar million says:

      Scalia knew it had to be an incremental victory if he had any hope of getting Kennedy and Roberts to concur. Long game.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        excuses, excuses, just like the excuses people give Trump.

        I don’t like Judges Gambling with our rights, and according to you that’s what Scalia did.

        1. avatar Jhon says:

          Grow up. Only ten year olds think like that. There are no absolutes.

        2. avatar JMR says:

          Interesting how you follow an absolute by saying there are no absolutes.

        3. avatar NB says:

          Scalia did more to protect the second amendment than any and every SCOTUS judge ever .
          And Trump has done more than any president has.
          You sound like the people whining about the NRA.

          Without all of the three above the second amendment would be fked.

          You do know that it is more likely a Democrat gets to replace Thomas than a Republican gets to replace Ginsburg? Or are you just so childish you don’t care?

    3. avatar Pmac says:

      A former neighbor and acquantance of mine takes vacation to guide turkey hunts around the country. If you have the coin. He is very good. He guided Scalia and a couple of other federal judges twice I can remember. Once in Texas for Rios and S. Florida for Osceolas. When Keith got back from Texas he showed me a photo of Scalia and his buddies. They were wearing their judicial robes. The robes were Realtree camo pattern. I think he was on a quail hunt in Texas when he died. In light of this I was very disappointed when Scalia hamstrung Heller like he did. Of course, I doubt he was worried about anyone taking his firearms.

  7. avatar burley says:

    Who is this clown?

    1. avatar Pmac says:

      To whom do refer? Me, or Scalia?

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Question is likely directed to Mr. Fairchild, asking why anyone should give his opinion any particular weight.

        1. avatar Pmac says:

          Ah, you may be right. Hard to tell the way he phrased the question since he didn’t reference a particular person.

  8. avatar JD says:

    I don’t know, after watching Kamala the gorilla harris’s speech last night announcing her decision to run next year, the republicans need to get their shit together. Or it’s going to be 10 times worse than when the chocolate Jesus was the president. God forbid if they get the president house and senate…

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      On the same day, the long running rumors that Kamala traded her filthy hatchet wound in return for money (ie: career advancement) were confirmed. She has been exposed as being quite literally a whore.

      1. avatar JMR says:

        None of that matters. It only matters to people who were not going to vote for her in the first place. Further attacking her over it will strengthen her chance.

        The best thing going for us right now is that there will be more Democrats running in 2020 than there was republicans in 2016. That will fracture the vote and they’ll probably get the worst candidate they have, which won’t be supported by the whole party.

        The best thing people on the right can do is stay out of it and not make silly attacks.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      Russian Troll???

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Russian Troll???”

        Not understanding your comment. Harris, if she doesn’t simply implode, represents an almost insurmountable opponent. She has the one qualification Obama lacked – female. Who is going to vote against, criticize, or publicly challenge a multi-minority candidate? What line of disagreement with Harris is available that does not result in a racism/misogynist claim? Even Trump can’t find a seam for attack/defense that does not result in outrage on the Left, in the media and among establishment Republicrats.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Hillary, Part 2. That’s all Trump needs.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Hillary, Part 2. That’s all Trump needs.”

          Understand your thought, but Harris is simply light years more palatable as a candidate than Hillary ever could be. The Left mistrusted Hilary, but loves Harris. From what is known today, Bernie’s people would be attracted to Harris; Sanders without the age problem for the children’s crusade.

        3. avatar JD says:

          These were my thoughts exactly. If you disagreed with Obama you are a racist. If you disagree with Harris you’re a racist misogynist. The leftist scum always has a way of twisting the public view.

        4. avatar Geoff "Bring the EDIT button back, will ya, TTAG?" PR says:

          “Who is going to vote against, criticize, or publicly challenge a multi-minority candidate?”

          She just admitted she fucked Willie Brown for a job and a new BMW.

          ADMITTED IT!

          Let the whore-shaming commence…

        5. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Let the whore-shaming commence…”

          After all this time, you still don’t get it?

          What you state is a winning badge of honor. She was the victim of a male-dominating, male-privileging, unfair, woman oppressive system that only valued women for their skills in bed. Bringing all that up is making a victim of her again, proving things have not changed in decades, and it will take a powerful woman at the top of the political structure to turn things around to where they should be.

          Just like Obama did. Emancipating the black community, and elevating them to levels of wealth and achievement to rival the white-privileged men of this country.

        6. avatar UpInArms says:

          Well, ya know, the GOP could go old school on this and attack Harris on her stands on the issues. I know, I know… radical idea. But there it is.

  9. avatar Ogre says:

    “You can’t proclaim absolute guarantees only on those parts of the Constitution that you like.” Works both ways – we believe the antis can’t proclaim commonsense restrictions on contitutional rights they don’t like, and whittle them away with the Death of 1,000 Cuts.

  10. avatar TFred says:

    And yet once again, we encounter a “journalist” missing the most intentionally overlooked footnote in the history of the Supreme Court. First let’s see the ENTIRE quote:

    “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. 26”

    Already we see that the full context is QUITE different than the short blurb quoted by the author. First hint: “we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment.” No, he left that full analysis for later cases.

    Now let’s take a look at that little “footnote 26.”

    “26 We identify these presumptively lawful regulatory measures only as examples; our list does not purport to be exhaustive.”

    Key word: PRESUMPTIVELY.

    Pay attention folks here’s the payoff:

    Heller was about keeping a gun in your house. Period. End of Story. NOTHING ELSE. Even the least experienced of SCOTUS reporters should understand that the court keeps their cases EXTREMELY NARROW in scope. SCOTUS often goes well out of their way to narrow the focus and impact of their rulings to only the actual circumstances at hand. That is exactly what Scalia was doing here.

    When Justice Scalia said “these presumptively lawful regulatory measures,” he meant EXACTLY THAT. They were PRESUMED to be lawful, but only because the case they were addressing did not concern those laws. Scalia, in his commonplace effort to keep the scope of Heller narrow, made NO JUDGEMENT WHATSOEVER on the validity of any other laws. Not that they were valid. Not that they were invalid.

    To represent anything otherwise is just plain dishonest.

  11. avatar Inspectorman says:

    Gun rights should be for everyone including so called felons. The word felon is like calling someone a nigger. Many are so called felons from smoking weed or late on child support payments and things of that nature. We are all sinners and fell short of the Glory of God according to scripture!! We have all sinned. Many of us would be felons sometime in life if we were caught doing something stupid. Most young people do stupid things when in a group.

    Anyway once liberals start chip chipping away at our right it starts our small and then they gain ground.

    I have even heard that serving in the military can also exempt you from the right to own a weapon!!! Where does it stop.

    The 2nd Amendment is for everyone… Yes there can be exceptions but even then a real criminal will get the guns he wants illegally!!! These laws only hurt the good and honest people

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “… nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions …” — snippet from Heller case.

    Huh, I did not realize that a prohibition is good, righteous, and just if it is longstanding. Under that standard, prohibitions on black people sitting at the front of the bus were good, righteous, and just.

    Even more importantly, if a local, state, or the federal government prohibited resistance to rape and no one challenged that prohibition for 100 years, does that mean the prohibition should stand?

    Of course facts and reason are unimportant to Leftists: they prize emotion, fantasy, and virtue. I’ll give you an example. Consider a Leftist who hates violence and declares that violence is wrong and that not being violent is the pinnacle of virtue. That Leftist will then declare that violently resisting rape violates their non-violence virtue and is therefore forbidden. That’s right: such a Leftist will condemn women to rape in order to uphold their declaration of virtue with respect to non-violence.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      Do you consider Scalia a leftist?

  13. avatar Sam I Am says:

    The US Constitution carries the seeds of its own destruction – the amendment process.

    The Constitution states there is only one feature/section/element/provision that cannot be amended, and that is the number of senators each state will be assigned (unless a state volunteers to have less). Everything else is vulnerable to constitutional amendment. That means, nothing in the constitution is, or can ever be, absolute (in the absolute sense). The protections enshrined in the constitution (which includes the BOR) can be absolute only so long as the protections are not amended to a different status.

    The only place we see the word “unalienable” (which is different from inalienable) is in the DOI. The framers of the DOI included only three unalienable rights, although those three are preceded by the phrase “among those are”. This leads to a conclusion that there exists other unalienable rights, yet the constitution neither lists those additional rights, nor does the constitution prohibit restrictions on civil rights via constitutional amendments.

    The founders had to concoct a compact of States that both established limits on the central/national government, yet allowed flexibility to address what even the founders understood was a changing world. As a constitutional absolutist, this entire matter of absolutism vs. realism vexes me endlessly.

    1. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The Bill of Rights is an acknowledgement of what is God given. It’s going to get really ugly if anybody tries to take away something that we’ve pretty much agreed was God given for well over 200 years. An amendment isn’t going to do it. No way.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “An amendment isn’t going to do it. No way.”

        Perfect example of how amendments can surprise people: Prohibition and repeal of Prohibition. So, “No way” is a false hope.

        If I remember correctly, the income tax amendment was “ratified”, even though it wasn’t. The Sec of State in Illinois (?) “certified” that the state legislature ratified the amendment, even though the measure had actually failed. The SC then declared that even though a fraud had been committed, ratification was a political matter, not a legal one. Ratification stood.

        But the whole point of my comment was/is that in effect, the founders provided a way to politically alienate unalienable rights. If the nation should ratify an amendment that declares a person shall not be tried by a jury of peers (a concept unknown since the early 1800s), but by a jury selected from a pool of government approved candidates, then such an amendment could eviscerate what many have come to see as an unalienable right – trial by peers. In truth, the only constitutional amendment I can see being declared unconstitutional would be one limiting the scope of the federal judiciary, including the SC. (well, the only one beside that senator thing I mentioned earlier).

    2. avatar JMR says:

      It is interesting. But for now even the Democrats are weary of repealing the second amendment. It will almost certainly start a war.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “But for now even the Democrats are weary of repealing the second amendment.”

        I know you meant “wary”, but I wish they really were “weary”.

        1. avatar JMR says:

          Well blame it on public school, and a bunch of terrible drunken teachers.

  14. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    Scalia screwed us. That FUDD.

    1. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

      I knew he was full of crap but tell that to some ignorant, entitled boomer when they think they’re getting what they want, it’s like telling a 3 year-old he can’t have ice-cream when he thought he was getting ice-cream. Instant tantrum.

  15. avatar Ing says:

    “You can’t proclaim absolute guarantees only on those parts of the Constitution that you like.”

    True. That’s why ALL parts of the Constitution should be absolute guarantees.

    My rights as a human being and a citizen of the United States of America exist because I exist, not because nine people in black robes or some bureaucrat or progressive pundit doled them out like indulgences.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That’s why ALL parts of the Constitution should be absolute guarantees.”

      If the founders believed it so (and they were really big on “natural” rights), there would be no amendment process.

      And the courts would be even more powerful.

      1. avatar UpInArms says:

        The amendment process can go both ways. Picture, in your wildest dreams, an unamendable amendment that makes the bill of rights unamendable. Its the sort of recursive thought experiment that drives lawyers towards controlled substances.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Picture, in your wildest dreams, an unamendable amendment that makes the bill of rights unamendable. ”

          Nice idea, but the SC would find that “compelling government interest” requires that restrictions be placed on unamendable amendments that amend the constitution. Such an amendment would also be subject to “reasonable/rational” review.

  16. avatar Fudds McKenzie says:

    4D chess again huh? Some will go to their graves believing it or at least spouting it to try to manipulate other shooters into voting a certain way.

  17. avatar Dan says:

    As far as the US Gov, American courts and virtually every politician to ever hold office
    our “Rights” are NOT “inalienable”. They are PRIVILEGES to be granted, withdrawn or
    modified at THEIR discretion, on THEIR whims and to serve THEIR NEEDS.

    The ONLY “Rights” you have as an American citizen are the ones that you are willing to
    fight for, die for and KILL CRIMINALS IN POWER TO DEFEND.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email