TexasCHLforum.com

I thought this was interesting and relevant to the upcoming presidential election. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... c&tid=4812

Reversing Heller decision and clarifying 2ndA as individual right is not easy. First, Even before the constitution was written settlers where armed not for hunting but for self-defense, second. 2ndA clearly state the right of the people, not the right of the state, not the right of the militia. It is clear enough to any 8th grader to understand the intent.

In any case, SCOTUS cannot repeal the articles of the constitutions nor it amendments.

This supreme court is a bitter disappointment. Someone must really have the goods on Roberts.

I would not be surprised to see this hive of villany once again continue to subvert and bastardize our founding document.

Beiruty wrote:In any case, SCOTUS cannot repeal the articles of the constitutions nor it amendments.

This. SCOTUS can chip away at the RKBA by handing down decisions which collectively render the 2nd Amendment irrelevant, but it can't repeal it. Repealing it requires the constitutional process of passing and ratifying an Amendment that counteracts the 2nd. Read up on the 18th and 21st Amendments. That's how it is done, and it is deliberately difficult to do.

Scotus can however interpret the 2nd Amendment in such a way that it becomes meaningless or even to the extent that the meaning becomes the opposite of the clear reading. They have done that in many ways with the 1st Amendment already as well as virtually reading the 10 Amendment out of the Constitution. That is why the most important thing about a presidential election is his/her ability to name Justices.

Chief Acevedo says the 2nd is clear: "Well regulated", he's all for gun control. I'm glad people here in San Antonio got mad and made sure he didn't become out chief of PD.

Soap wrote:Chief Acevedo says the 2nd is clear: "Well regulated", he's all for gun control. I'm glad people here in San Antonio got mad and made sure he didn't become out chief of PD.

"Well regulated" didn't have the same meaning in 18th century english that it has today. The meaning of the constitution doesn't change just because word usage changes.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

When you combine that with the notion of a irregular militia made up of civilians, the meaning of that opening clause is obvious. It would be read this way: "An irregular militia which is equipped and runs like clockwork being necessary to a free state, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted in any way."

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soap wrote:Chief Acevedo says the 2nd is clear: "Well regulated", he's all for gun control. I'm glad people here in San Antonio got mad and made sure he didn't become out chief of PD.

"Well regulated" didn't have the same meaning in 18th century english that it has today. The meaning of the constitution doesn't change just because word usage changes.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

When you combine that with the notion of a irregular militia made up of civilians, the meaning of that opening clause is obvious. It would be read this way: "An irregular militia which is equipped and runs like clockwork being necessary to a free state, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted in any way."

You don't have to explain it to me but that guy is a police chief. You see what we're up against?

Soap wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soap wrote:Chief Acevedo says the 2nd is clear: "Well regulated", he's all for gun control. I'm glad people here in San Antonio got mad and made sure he didn't become out chief of PD.

"Well regulated" didn't have the same meaning in 18th century english that it has today. The meaning of the constitution doesn't change just because word usage changes.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

When you combine that with the notion of a irregular militia made up of civilians, the meaning of that opening clause is obvious. It would be read this way: "An irregular militia which is equipped and runs like clockwork being necessary to a free state, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted in any way."

You don't have to explain it to me but that guy is a police chief. You see what we're up against?

He is a police chief from California....enough said...

Soap wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Soap wrote:Chief Acevedo says the 2nd is clear: "Well regulated", he's all for gun control. I'm glad people here in San Antonio got mad and made sure he didn't become out chief of PD.

"Well regulated" didn't have the same meaning in 18th century english that it has today. The meaning of the constitution doesn't change just because word usage changes.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

When you combine that with the notion of a irregular militia made up of civilians, the meaning of that opening clause is obvious. It would be read this way: "An irregular militia which is equipped and runs like clockwork being necessary to a free state, the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted in any way."

You don't have to explain it to me but that guy is a police chief. You see what we're up against?

Yes, I understand.

Both Heller and McDonald were 5-4 decisions. Nothing is guaranteed the next time. SCOTUS has completely reversed itself dozens of times. We're one retirement away from the Second Amendment only protecting the collective rights of militias and from it not applying to individual states.

Stay vigilant.