From the Justice who brought you Kelo …

It’s not a right, it’s a relic from the past:

From the NYT:

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides 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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

You have no individual right to gun ownership and we’re taking your house to replace it with a property that will improve our tax rolls. Thank you, Justice Stevens, for your contribution.

34 Responses

  1. “Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”

    Might as well repeal the rest of them as well under that premise.

    From the Washington Post, another classic progressive response to a potential additional question on the census:

    ““We will litigate to stop the Administration from moving forward with this irresponsible decision,” Holder wrote. “The addition of a citizenship question to the census questionnaire is a direct attack on our representative democracy.””

    Because attempting to discern how many illegal immigrants are in the country is a direct attack on democracy.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/03/27/california-sues-trump-administration-over-decision-to-add-citizenship-question-to-census/

    If only Trump wasn’t such a buffoon, Republicans would have a much easier time pointing out how radical the Democrats position on protecting illegal aliens at all costs actually is. They don’t want the question there because they don’t want the information collected and acted upon.

    Like

    • “If only Trump wasn’t such a buffoon”

      I struggle with if he was elected because of that quality, or despite it. I fear it was “because.”

      Or maybe I’m overthinking it. Clinton sucked and he was a rock to throw through a window .. nothing more or less.

      Like

    • jnc:

      If only Trump wasn’t such a buffoon…

      Exactly. This is the real problem with Trump, not any “selling” of public offices or mythical collusion with Russia.

      Like

  2. Worth noting:

    “Trump’s New Judicial Litmus Test: Shrinking ‘the Administrative State’

    By JEREMY W. PETERS
    MARCH 26, 2018

    WASHINGTON — It has been practically a given that anyone nominated for a federal judgeship by a Republican president had to pass an unspoken litmus test — usually on abortion but often on any number of divisive social issues.

    The Trump administration has a new litmus test: reining in what conservatives call “the administrative state.”

    With surprising frankness, the White House has laid out a plan to fill the courts with judges devoted to a legal doctrine that challenges the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, often without being subject to judicial oversight. Those not on board with this agenda, the White House has said, are unlikely to be nominated by President Trump.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/us/politics/trump-judges-courts-administrative-state.html

    Like

    • It has been practically a given that anyone nominated for a federal judgeship by a Republican president had to pass an unspoken litmus test

      Heh…yeah…as if this is limited to those nominated by Republicans, and the Wise Latina wasn’t subject to any such litmus test.
      And I’d certainly like to ask Kennedy and Souter about their litmus test pledge.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “The Trump administration has a new litmus test: reining in what conservatives call “the administrative state.””

      Good. Because the administrative state is objectively fascist in nature. The more reigning in we do the better.

      Like

  3. It is a relic from the past. It’s also in the constitution. There’s a way to get a consensus that it is no longer applicable and should be removed. It’s called an amendment. There’s a whole process for them. Repeal the 2nd amendment through that process.

    Otherwise, it does not matter that it’s a relic. It’s still in the constitution.

    Like

    • You know what else is a relic from the past?

      Marbury v. Madison

      Judicial review is so 18th century.

      Like

      • The joke is that if the likes of Stevens hadn’t already so embraced the corrupt notion of substantive due process and its bastard offspring of incorporation, states would be free to regulate gun ownership in whatever way they wanted. He is more responsible for the inability to enact “sensible” gun control laws than is this “relic” from the past.

        Like

      • jnc:

        Judicial review is so 18th century.

        lol

        Like

    • If the Constitution merely enumerates our rights, particularly those in the first 10 amendments, can they be repealed? Meaning, if I have the right to free speech because I am a US citizen, that is unalienable because I am a citizen of the US, can it be repealed? I say no.

      Like

      • McWing:

        If the Constitution merely enumerates our rights, particularly those in the first 10 amendments, can they be repealed?

        The right can’t be repealed, but the government can be granted the power to violate them.

        The modern understanding of the Bill of Rights is very far removed from that of the Founders. Contrary to what most people today seem to think, the BoR was not intended to be a list of individual rights that “government” in the abstract is not allowed to violate. It was intended to be a list of things that simply emphasized the limited reach of federal power.

        Like

      • “merely enumerates our rights”

        there’s an old school concept. good luck explaining that in 140 characters or less. or as a talking head in 20 seconds.

        Like

    • KW:

      Repeal the 2nd amendment through that process.

      Interestingly, under a proper understanding of the Constitution, repeal of the second amendment wouldn’t actually change anything. Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to regulate firearms, and so in fact Congress does not have the power to do so even in the absence of the second amendment. Many of the Federalists were actually opposed to including the BoR in the Constitution for exactly this reason. As Hamilton put it in Federalist 84:

      I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power.

      How prescient he was. As we have seen, “men disposed to usurp” are legion.

      Like

      • Too many of us are gun owners for repeal of the 2d A to get buy in between the coasts. Gun safety? Sure. In fact, any limitation available under the 2d A is fair game. But the urvan planner wet dream of outlawing private ownership of firearms is going nowhere.

        Commerce clause would allow Congress to regulate commerce in firearms across state lines, I think. I have told the story of my spirited court appointed defense of a three time felon in Fed Ct for being a three time felon in possession of arms shipped in interstate commerce.

        He had a beautiful old Peacemaker which the AUSA had assumed by assumption had been in interstate commerce. I introduced the recognized authority on the history of those revolvers and it is the most copied revolver in history. The source said there were 130 or so different local gunsmiths in Texas alone who had faked them. The gun had no “Colt firearms” stamp on it anywhere. I moved outside the presence of the jury for acquittal-missing element of the gimmint’s case, no proof of interstate commerce. AUSA asked for a one day postponement and got it. Reopened the next day with an expert from Colt they flew down. He testified that the gun had been shipped in commerce. On cross I pointed out there was no identifying Colt mark on the gun and he agreed. Then he killed us.

        “The gun was made in Mexico.” And then he supported that conclusion with a pile of photos and history I could not possibly refute.

        Well, my guy got no worse really than he would have if he had pleaded guilty. I was very happy when the Ausin district finally got a defender system so civil trial lawyers did not have to screw around deending three time losers.

        I had another one who looked just like Manson. I told him he had to plead. He did. The ATF delivered his sawed off shotguns TO ME for safekeeping. That was awkward.

        Like

        • Mark:

          Commerce clause would allow Congress to regulate commerce in firearms across state lines, I think.

          Certainly I think Congress has the power to regulate commerce that takes place across state lines, in guns as in anything else. But I do not think it has the power to regulate anything related to firearms simply because they happen to be a part of commerce across state lines. For example, regulating the possession of something that happened to have, at some point, been shipped across a state line is not an example of regulating interstate commerce. Possession and commerce are two entirely different concepts.

          Like

      • “How prescient he was. As we have seen, “men disposed to usurp” are legion.”

        I think he’s wrong on the merits of enumerated rights, Absent the written Bill of Rights, all of them would already be dead letter.

        “Many of the Federalists were actually opposed to including the BoR in the Constitution for exactly this reason.”

        I think they were lying. They didn’t want the constraints on the federal government.

        Like

        • jnc:

          Absent the written Bill of Rights, all of them would already be dead letter.

          Possibly, but in light of the notion of substantive due process, it is hard to predict just what kinds of rights SCOTUS might have decided were “constitutionally” protected in the absence of being explicitly declared. It is not obvious to me that a court that thinks the constitution protects a right to abortion despite the complete absence of any mention of such a right wouldn’t also have decided that it also protects the right to free speech despite not being mentioned explicitly.

          I think they were lying. They didn’t want the constraints on the federal government.

          Perhaps, but if so, the needn’t have worried. The existence of the BoR certainly hasn’t hindered their goal, and has in fact facilitated it.

          Like

        • “and has in fact facilitated it.”

          That I reject. It’s slowed it considerably, but not sufficiently, especially in the case of the Second Amendment.

          The easy counterexample that shows what happens without a written Bill of Rights is Great Britain.

          Liked by 1 person

        • jnc:

          That I reject. It’s slowed it considerably, but not sufficiently, especially in the case of the Second Amendment.

          Incorporation of the Bill of Rights has greatly expanded the power of the federal government. SCOTUS, not the states, now has the power to decide what laws do and do not fall afoul of the BoR. SCOTUS is, of course, a branch of the federal government. (Hamilton also argued that we didn’t really have to worry about the power of SCOTUS…maybe he was lying about that, too.)

          The easy counterexample that shows what happens without a written Bill of Rights is Great Britain.

          Britain was never a federalist system, nor did it ever have a constitution detailing the powers of the government. I don’t think the differences between the US and GB are due to the absence of a Bill of Rights.

          Like

    • I was thinking last night about Stevens’ op-ed and his proclamation that the 2nd amendment should be repealed. Let’s suppose that the 2nd amendment is repealed. What is to prevent SCOTUS judges who actually oppose such a repeal from simply declaring that individual access to a gun is a “fundamental” right protected by “substantive” due process under the 14th amendment, and striking down any subsequently proposed gun regulations? How would such an action by SCOTUS differ in any way at all from its application of “substantive” due process in, for example, disputes over the Constitutionality of laws regulating abortion?

      Like

  4. I’ll be in my bunk.

    http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2018/03/please-true-lincoln-planning-return-suicide-doors-continental-report-claims/

    This is objectively better than free porn!*

    My current dream car will be the 2019/2020 Ford Shelby GT500. I already have buy-in from my wife. Just waiting to see if it’s rolled out in the fall of 2018 for the 2019 model year or if it’s rolled out in 2019 for the 2020 model year. It’s teased as over 700 hp.

    * If True

    Liked by 1 person

  5. It’s a fair reading and shouldn’t be ignored.

    Like

  6. I lol’d

    “So the diversity he’d bring is… none. None more diversity.”
    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/374524.php

    Like

  7. The comments in the post are fascinating.

    More specifically, their morality comes only from “Jesus said . . .” or “the Bible says . . .”  In other words, the key to understanding these people is blind worship of authority.  They don’t share the Whitman-Thoreau view that morality is something you know and recognize inside yourself.
    So “Jesus saves” in the spiritual realm and “Trump saves” in the political realm.  Faith should be absolute.
    That being said, absolute faith is an ideal for them.  Most say they have absolute faith, but few really do.  They may couch lack of faith in the language of temptation.  But bottom line is that I’ll bet more than half of evangelicals are not really (really) sure there is even a heaven.  But if they just incant it often enough . . .
    Anyway, I digress and rant a little.  
    But the point is AUTHORITY.  Someone else tells them what is right and wrong.  And if that person is important enough in their eyes, well then that’s good enough.
    Which raises the million dollar question: How do they decide (collectively and normatively) who are the important authority figures to follow.  Which ones are from God and Which ones are really from the Devil. 
    I mean why didn’t they worship Obama, or Jimmy Carter back in the day.  
    God I wish I knew the magical answer to that one.
    We can talk about Fox News, and that’s part of it.  Televangelists with their glitz may make  them look like they are from God.  
    But I’m not sure that’s the whole of it.  
    Please log in or sign up to continue.

    Though the one below is equally interesting.

    I believe we should be careful there: most “Trump voters” don’t get a fair view of reality, they are seeing it through the extremely distorted lens of Foж Иews and AM radio (which effect just got massively amplified this year by Sinclair buying a huge number of local TV monopolies).
    So most hard core Republicans honestly believe that Democrats are incredibly immoral: they want to kill babies, they want to take other people’s money, they want to take guns and they want to regulate their speech.
    The Republican party is carefully cultivating this ~40% base of voters, and these Trump voters are almost impenetrable to Democratic messages, because they don’t see those messages, or if they see them, they are immediately overwhelmed by matching counter-propaganda.
    The overwhelming majority of people don’t see themselves as unfair people trying to screw others, they simply believe the false notion that Democrats are “evil”.
    It’s very difficult to break through such belief, not just because 80% of the TV and radio market in the U.S. is controlled by conservative billionaires, but also because many Republican messages are hiding behind the taboo of not criticizing religious beliefs. This is why Republicans are trying to base their messages in religion: it makes the messages a taboo to be analyzed rationally.
    But as it happened in California, many of the same people who voted Republican will be stable Democratic voters, once the lies of Republicans becomes more apparent to them.
    The same could happen in Texas too, if Democrats registered and turned out.
    The key is patience, smart messaging and GOTV — I believe the percentage of hard core Trump voters could shrink well below 20% in 20 years — only the racists at heart would remain there.
    Please log in or sign up to continue.
    Critical Thinking Mar 27 · 02:50:56 PM

    Having a hard time reconciling this with the above underlined portion.

    No, it’s not just that. The anti-choice stance is a symptom, not the disease. They are fully committed authoritarians, and they believe particularly in white and male authority.
    Please log in or sign up to continue.
    samanthab Mar 27 · 01:39:06 PM

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1752505

    Like

  8. Dude spent 7.5 years in prison for drug smuggling.

    , after getting his green card revoked over a nonviolent drug conviction.

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1752456

    The “fine” detail,

    Perez handed a laptop case containing 4.4 pounds of cocaine to an undercover officer on Nov. 26, 2008, authorities said. He pleaded guilty to the drug charge and ICE took him into custody after he served half of a 15-year prison sentence.

    https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/03/26/army-veteran-in-us-since-age-8-deported-after-prison-stint/

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: