Comments on: Permission to Speak Freely, Sir!

By: FreedomSight

FreedomSight — Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:22:03 +0000

[...] t, but I guess it’s possible to break it. Or maybe it’s now b0rken out of the box.

(Via Xrlq, whose blog doesn’t show trackback links either, unless you happen to hit t [...]

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 21:11:44 +0000

And, of course, the phrase well-regulated modifies militia and not the right to arms.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:42:17 +0000

Michael, I don't think it's that simple. For a century and a half, no court seriously (or even unseriously AFAIK) entertained the notion that "well-regulated militia" meant "ignore the rest of this sentence." In fact, that was one of the arguments raised in the infamous Dred Scott decision: if we admit blacks are "people," then they'll have a right to keep and bear arms! The only time the Supreme Court came close to endorsing the "collective rights" position was U.S. v. Miller, where it ruled that individuals only had a constitutional right to keep and bear those arms that had a reasonable relationship to a well-regulated militia. It was a crummy decision, but not necessarily out of step the overall jurisprudence of its day (e.g., the First Amendment didn't offer much protection for non-religious and non-political speech, either). To top it off, the Court of Appeal in Quilici v. Mor[t]on Grove upheld a handgun ban against a challenge both under the Second Amendment and under its semi-equivalent in the Illinois Constitution. The Illinois version says nothing about militias (well-regulated, poorly regulated, unregulated or otherwise), and declares that "the right of the individual" (not the amorphous "the people") shall not be infringed. In the end, all that mattered was that two of the three judges presiding over the case supported gun control, and six of the Justices in the U.S. Supreme Court were too lazy to hear an appeal. Not that the 1982-83 version of the Supreme Court (consisting of Burger, C.J. and Brennan, White, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens, and O'Connor, JJwould have been much help anyway).

By: PS

PS — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 11:43:01 +0000

By All Means, Speak Freely!

Via Patterico, I read Xrlq’s First and Second Amendment discourse. Best part: This entry originated as a rebuttal to one of Patterico’s threads, but as you can see, the end result was more questions than answers. The argument’s substantive, and…

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:45:28 +0000

That ruling happened a decade or so ago, when the German Supreme Court ruled that Scientology is not a religion. I didn’t think much of the ruling at the time, as Justice Kennedy had yet to find the “international consensus equals U.S. Constitution” amendment.

By: Kevin Murphy

Kevin Murphy — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:30:09 +0000

I’m waiting for the “cults are not religion” ruling.

By: PRESTOPUNDIT

PRESTOPUNDIT — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:06:19 +0000

PATTERICO is right about

this one. Xrlq headlines his link to the post “Permission to Speak Freely, Sir!”….

By: Ranten N. Raven

Ranten N. Raven — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 04:11:34 +0000

You ready to shoot people? The cop? The judge? The baliff? The politician who sent them? You allowed them to trample some rights (guns) and now you will draw the line . . . where? Are you REALLY willing to shoot people? God I hope it doesn't come to that! I blogged at length on this HERE.

By: Flap

Flap — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:43:30 +0000

Gentlemen,

This is why we have the RULE of LAW in the USA.

By: eric the white

eric the white — Mon, 14 Mar 2005 03:36:30 +0000

Has the Aclu said anything about this or are they being, as usual, totally worthless?You would figure this has all the trappings of free speech being trampled on by an over reaching government.