At the confirmation hearing of Jeff Sessions for attorney general, Desiree A. Fairooz said she merely giggled. Prosecutors gave a different account.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/03/us/code-pink-sessions-laughter-trial.html.
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gun rights. Show all posts
Friday, May 05, 2017
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Gun rights vs. property rights, a conundrum for "conservatives"
'Tis hunting season in Minnesota. Right now it is deer season and we can hear gunshots now and then. I hope they were all on federal land to the south of us.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Technically, we are supposed to post "No Hunting" signs all around our property, but it is a real pain to post signs around 80 acres (half-mile along the road and a quarter-mile deep). Besides, there always seem to be some jerks that will go right by a "No hunting/no trespassing sign.
Given that in St. Louis County, one can access the Online Land Explorer to find out ownership of every parcel of land, and so there is no excuse for trespassing. In some other counties one can buy land maps. Given all the other costs of hunting, I would think the maps are small change.
Now the conundrum, if a gun owner in a residential area is entitled to shoot and kill a "trespasser", should not a rural resident be entitled to shoot a trespassing hunter?
Case in point, several years ago a bird hunter shot down our driveway with a red pickup clearly visible in the driveway. Would I have been entitled to shoot and kill that hunter in self-defense?
This particular hunter had a "right" to have a shot gun, but I have a right to my property without worrying about an irresponsible gun owner.
I have many friends who are responsible hunters, but shouldn't there be some restrictions on irresponsible people even owning guns.
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Second Amendment v. Article I, Section 8
"Everybody" seems to know exactly what the following means:
"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."
This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.
However, what Congress passed was:
"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."
Just what does the missing comma mean? I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.
Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.
He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.
A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution. She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court. They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court. Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".
Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.
One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.
If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment. Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state. The Supreme Court ruled against Presser. Among the arguments was, “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”
Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says. This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.
I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”. I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.
As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose. Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty? Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?
And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason. Boy! Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.
What is an independent to do? “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.
"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."
This was ratified by the States and Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State authenticated it.
However, what Congress passed was:
"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."
Just what does the missing comma mean? I'll defer to grammarians on this, but if there is any difference in meaning, it makes it harder to determine the intent of Congress.
Whatever, Cliven Bundy and his supporters are using "the right to bear arms" as a justification of his armed refusal to obey a court order that the Bureau of Land Management should confiscate his cattle for his non-payment of fees for use of Federal Land.
He seems to be ignoring Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that includes:
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”
Thus my general tendency to regard as wholly untenable any approach to the Constitution that describes itself as obviously correct and condemns its opposition as simply wrong holds for the Second Amendment as well. The Constitution contains too many phrases that are open to interpretation.
A Tea Party member stated on a To the Best of Our Knowledge broadcast that she could determine the writers' intent by reading the Constitution. She must be more knowledgable than the Justices of the Supreme Court. They rarely have unanimous decisions. Even if they do, the decision can be overturned by a later court. Consider that the "separate by equal" case justifying school segregation was overturned later by "Brown vs, Board of Education".
Even decisions on the Second Amendment have changed over time.
One of the early cases was US v. Cruikshank (1876) where the defendants were accused of threatening citizens of African descent who were exercising their own rights to peaceably assemble.
If the Second Amendment was intended as an individual right, then shouldn’t the slaves have had the right to bear arms for self-defense against oppressive slave owners and overreaching state governments that condoned slavery?
In Presser v. Illinois (1886), Presser claimed that the armed parade he was leading was protected by the Second Amendment. Illinois law forbade anybody to form a military company without a license from the state. The Supreme Court ruled against Presser. Among the arguments was, “The exercise of this power [to regulate the militia] by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.”
Justice James Clark McReynolds wrote the opinion in US vs. Miller (1939) that The National Firearms Act was not unconstitutional as an invasion of the reserved powers of the States and not violative of the Second Amendment of the Constitution. McReynolds was a very conservative judge who opposed much of Roosevelt’s New Deal legislation.
.
Then everything changed with District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. One of the pronouncements is “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
This reads as if written by an “activist judge” who interprets the Constitution to suit ideological beliefs rather than what the Constitution actually says. This is surprising to come from a judge appointed by a president of a party who long railed against “activist judges”.
I wonder if the current Supreme Court would rule in Cliven Bundy’s favor because the Congress does not have the authority to call out the militia “to suppress insurrections”. I wonder that if many in Congress voted to call out the militia would the Republicans then do everything they could to stop this action.
As so many of us are, the Republicans seem to be selective in which laws they support and which they oppose. Are not laws prohibiting abortion an imposition on individual liberty? Are not laws favoring certain religious views in schools an imposition on those who do not have those views?
And Republicans seem the most eager to have a large standing army to go anywhere the President wants for whatever reason. Boy! Talk about not following the intent of the Founders.
What is an independent to do? “Conservatives” want to go back to a past that never was, and “Liberals” want a future that will never be.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Who was standing whose ground?
A big deal is made that a gun-toting "neighborhood watchman" was "standing his ground" in shooting an unarmed black teenager. Have many considered that an unarmed black teenager was standing his ground against somebody who was stalking him? Ah, since he didn't have a gun, then he couldn't "stand his ground". Trayvon Martin didn't have the right to bare fists!
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Constitution, Rights, and secretive Congress
I left the following comment on OccupyVotingBooths Facebook community to an item on the arrest of Josh Fox taking pictures of a Congressional hearing. The article is "The Arrest of Josh Fox: What Are They Trying to Hide When They Deny Our Right to Take Pictures?"
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
This all is a slippery slope of intent. If cameras were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then how can we positively say that use of a camera is a First Amendment right? Since multiple-shot, concealable weapons were unknown at the writing of the Constitution, then there is no Constitutional right to conceal and carry. Either we have to interpret the Constitution to cover modern technology or we have to interpret it to not give rights of use of modern technology. As it is, we are interpreting it to suit our own interests. Nothing new there.
What we can assume about the arrest of Josh Fox is that some members of Congress have something to hide.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Second amendment rights, to what purpose?
"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."
Like so much in the U. S. Constitution, the second amendment is open to a variety of interpretations. One that is used by many is that gun ownership is needed to protect oneself against the government.
Those who hold to this interpretation ignore Article I, Section 8, which includes the power of Congress "To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and Article III, Section 2, which includes "The President shall be Commander in Chief of … the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States".
This has happened at least twice. George Washington, as Commander in-Chief, lead forces against the insurrection of the those tax-evading participants of the Whiskey Rebellion. Old George knew what he was doing; he had been president of the Constitutional Convention. Abe Lincoln was Commander in Chief of the various militia against the insurrection of the Southern States.
If you want to have a gun to protect yourself against the government, the government has the constitutional right to call out the militia to protect itself against you.
Like so much in the U. S. Constitution, the second amendment is open to a variety of interpretations. One that is used by many is that gun ownership is needed to protect oneself against the government.
Those who hold to this interpretation ignore Article I, Section 8, which includes the power of Congress "To provide for the calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions" and Article III, Section 2, which includes "The President shall be Commander in Chief of … the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States".
This has happened at least twice. George Washington, as Commander in-Chief, lead forces against the insurrection of the those tax-evading participants of the Whiskey Rebellion. Old George knew what he was doing; he had been president of the Constitutional Convention. Abe Lincoln was Commander in Chief of the various militia against the insurrection of the Southern States.
If you want to have a gun to protect yourself against the government, the government has the constitutional right to call out the militia to protect itself against you.
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Gun rights vs. community rights
The Coffee Party web site has an interesting blog "Personal Rights vs. Community Rights".
One of the interesting statements is "I do not carry a loaded weapon in a crowded area because of what that gun could do to innocent lives if it were accidentally to go off."
Have those who exercise their "right" to bear arms by carrying a loaded pistol in stores, churches, and other public places considered the number of police officers who have been killed with their own guns? Police officers receive extensive fire arms training and practice. If a crazy can grab a gun from a well-trained police officer, cannot a crazy grab a gun from a less well-trained person? Especially in a public place where people are in close proximity to each other. Shane had the benefit of wide open spaces and carefully choosing where he sat. Other gun-carriers are not living in the Old West, but in crowded cities.
One of the interesting statements is "I do not carry a loaded weapon in a crowded area because of what that gun could do to innocent lives if it were accidentally to go off."
Have those who exercise their "right" to bear arms by carrying a loaded pistol in stores, churches, and other public places considered the number of police officers who have been killed with their own guns? Police officers receive extensive fire arms training and practice. If a crazy can grab a gun from a well-trained police officer, cannot a crazy grab a gun from a less well-trained person? Especially in a public place where people are in close proximity to each other. Shane had the benefit of wide open spaces and carefully choosing where he sat. Other gun-carriers are not living in the Old West, but in crowded cities.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Trigger sappy in America
Concealed-carry supporters argue that concealed weapons will allow people to defend themselves against mass murderers. Texas and other states are considering legislation to allow concealed weapons on college campuses.
"The American Way", Bob Herbert, New York Times, 2009-04-14
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14herbert.html
Will it really work? Will one or two people with minimal training in the use of a pistol be able to stop some idiot with an assault weapon. Is everybody with a pistol a Navy Seal sniper?
Consider the number of police officers who have been killed by assault weapons. These officers have regular target practice. They are trained to react to armed people. Three officers were killed by a single gunman in Pittsburgh. Four officers were shot to death in Oakland.
Consider the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Killeen TX in 1991. My memory from the newspapers of the time is that there were two police officers eating in the restaurant at the time of the shooting, but by the time they reacted, the gunman had already barricaded himself in restroom. I can't corroborate this easily today via Google.
On the other hand, one of the survivors had left her gun in her car instead of her purse. Both of her parents were killed by the gunman. She has become a strong advocate of concealed carry. But would she have been able to get close enough to kill the gunman before he killed her with his semi-automatic pistol? In fact, he was wounded by police before finally being shot to death.
Frankly, I don't think the gun question can ever be satisfactorily settled. The Constitution was written in a time when all guns were single-shot. One person could not possibly defend himself against a government patrol coming to arrest him. However, neighbors banding together could defend themselves somewhat from an out-of-control government. I think this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment (couldn't they have been less ambiguous). Even then, many of these groups didn't succeed: Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.
"The American Way", Bob Herbert, New York Times, 2009-04-14
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/14/opinion/14herbert.html
Will it really work? Will one or two people with minimal training in the use of a pistol be able to stop some idiot with an assault weapon. Is everybody with a pistol a Navy Seal sniper?
Consider the number of police officers who have been killed by assault weapons. These officers have regular target practice. They are trained to react to armed people. Three officers were killed by a single gunman in Pittsburgh. Four officers were shot to death in Oakland.
Consider the Luby's Cafeteria massacre in Killeen TX in 1991. My memory from the newspapers of the time is that there were two police officers eating in the restaurant at the time of the shooting, but by the time they reacted, the gunman had already barricaded himself in restroom. I can't corroborate this easily today via Google.
On the other hand, one of the survivors had left her gun in her car instead of her purse. Both of her parents were killed by the gunman. She has become a strong advocate of concealed carry. But would she have been able to get close enough to kill the gunman before he killed her with his semi-automatic pistol? In fact, he was wounded by police before finally being shot to death.
Frankly, I don't think the gun question can ever be satisfactorily settled. The Constitution was written in a time when all guns were single-shot. One person could not possibly defend himself against a government patrol coming to arrest him. However, neighbors banding together could defend themselves somewhat from an out-of-control government. I think this is what the founders had in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment (couldn't they have been less ambiguous). Even then, many of these groups didn't succeed: Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)