Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

FORMER Chief Justice Burger.

The idea that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of an individual to own a gun is a "fraud" according to the late Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger. Burger's pronouncement is quoted prominently in current advertising by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, the tax-exempt arm of Handgun Control, Inc.

Not surprisingly, the advertisements don't cite the place where the former Chief Justice set forth his analysis of the Second Amendment.

Because Burger never said anything about the Second Amendment when he was actually on the Supreme Court. (Half a dozen Supreme Court decisions affirm that the Second Amendment is an individual right.)

Nor did Mr. Burger write anything about the Second Amendment in a scholarly legal or historical journal. (The scholarly consensus is virtually unanimous that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right).

No, the Chief Justice wrote about the Second Amendment in Parade magazine, in a short article in January 1990. (A shorter version was later printed in some newspaper editorials.) This article represents, in a sense, the high-water mark for anti-Second Amendment "scholarship." Because the gun prohibition lobbies will continue to promote the late Mr. Burger's "research" about the Second Amendment.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a v**e of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia. The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

FYI: We do not have "unfettered access to any kind of weapon." Don't believe me? Try me, I'll prove it.

Tug484

I hope the anti gun people never get their way.
They will be on the same sinking ship we're on because of the v**es they cast to accomplish this.

Stratman911

Ok ... Then the next time one of these mass shootings happen, let's grab you and take you through all the Carnage, and dead bodies and then we'll take you to the homes of the families of all the victims and you can explain to them why your gun rights are more important than their loved ones lying in a pool of blood... Because you don't really have to sell it to me, but I dare you to say the same thing to them

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Ok.. well thank you... No sarcasm intended... I have my own thoughts.. on the pros and cons of certain weapons... at least for me personally.. I'm kinda old school in that as far as an intruder is concerned.. 1 shot..1 k**l.. and so therefore, I find no reason what so ever for me 1) waste ammunition 2) To have need of an assault weapon... ie: AK47, Mac10 etc etc... But to be fair.. a Fork, knife, hell even a spoon, could be considered an assault weapon.. in the Literal definition of Assault.. but again, same as the baseball bat, I don't wanna be that close to an intruder... For me, I prefer to have one or two, (if matched set) pistols, preferrably wheel guns.. and a Long rifle, 30/30.. I have a varmit gun, lol.. I live in Nevada in the high desert.. we have varmits..lol so a .22 will do, or hell a pellet gun.. but the point was, one or two and plenty of ammuntion for both. I've heard tell of the "checks n balances" of citizen to gov't, again, in the Literal terms... that technicality in the original writings state Well armed m*****a.. meaning if they have a tank I can have a tank to be evenly matched on the field of battle..and hey.. for all I know, the way s**t is goin in our country, wouldn't surprise me if shots were actually gonna be fired, atm it's a "cold civil war" although... not so sure it hasn't already happened.. somewhere in this country..

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

*sighs* It's NOT the damn Gun!!.. It's the Human behind the gun.. that needs fixing, and you are possibly deluding yourself that these nut balls shooting people are getting their guns from their parents gun safe or case, or they are getting them legally, No matter how much you wanna condemn the gun.. they are getting these guns, Mostly on the street Illegally!!..

This kinda reminds me of the last couple decades living in california... and thank god I got the hell outta there...

So, some dumbass gets drunk.. and drowns in the fast moving river.. so NOW, you can't have any kind of alcohol at the river... Basically, Libs want to disarm us legal gun owning citizens because some assclown shoots up a mall or a school.. Again I am sad for their loss but Not to the extent that I'm gonna give up my bad lil gun to some goon in a freakin uniform.. The gore and guilt you put out in a couple texts, well lets put it this way, not gonna work and Now that you have so graphically described it, I won't need to go there...

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

[quote=RickyDCUSMC]

Amen to all the above!!
Thank you!!Very much for serving!!!
Semper Fi
Larai

Tug484

I'm more concerned about drunk drivers.
We've had many deaths due to that on a less than 20 mile almost straight four lane highway.
I've lived here a long time and there have been three murders and one attempted murder.
A son k**led his dad.
A man hung his 23 year old wife.
An older man shot his daughter and son in law.
Young people had a drug party and one of the guys k**led one of his guests

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

I agree.. as far as drunk drivers!... and just wow, on the k*****gs...one of those shootings the one in Gilroy Ca.. the shooter bought his weapon online, and picked it up here in my little town.., the owner of the shop said the guy "looked normal" what ever normal looks like, unless I use that ass hat in gov't.. schiff, his eyes are bat s**t nuts, I would NOT sell that guy a gun!... lol.. Nope.

Tug484

You are right. A drunk driver hit my son and his friend head on on the wrong side of a four lane highway. His friend almost died.
I found pieces of my son's car a long distance from the wreck.
I told the officer the insurance paper is in the glove box.
The officer told me there wasn't a glove box.
I went to the car and opened it. The radiator was against it
He had left and came back to the house with his t tops in a case.
What are you doing?
I don't want my t tops to get scratched.
That was the least of his problem that night.

fidelis

A point to remember. The Japanese decided not to try to invade our mainland due to the number of weapons in the hands the citizenry. Would not have been a cake walk and still wouldn't be today. We are much more sk**led in weaponry today than back then. Point to ponder for our would be masters.

Is life so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and s***ery?

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Can the hyperbole, OK? I know what it like to pull the dead bodies of men, women and children out of the rubble and ashes of burned homes and buildings, out of the twisted and smashed remains of a vehicle, I know what it is like trying to comfort their surviving family and friends. And, I know what it is like to save the lives of injured victims of these tragic events.

Since 1982, 1069 people have been k**led in random mass shootings. This does not include targeted k*****gs such as occurred in Dayton, OH or those that occur in a dysfunctional family or when a disgruntled employee takes out his boss and fellow employees, or a r****t sniper ambushes police officers--I mean random mass shootings such as Columbine, VA Tech, Aurora theater, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas.

1069 people k**led over a period of 37 years, though tragic in the circumstance, is an average of 29 victims per year.

Now, let's consider the numerous studies and research into defensive gun use by legally armed citizens. These studies were conducted by university criminologists, police and federal law enforcement associations, the National Institute of Justice, the CDC and the DOJ.

A study in 1997 conducted by Dr. Gary Kleck, professor of criminology and criminal justice at Florida State University in Tallahassee (with Marc Gertz). Dr. Kleck is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate, and he is not a member of the NRA,

This study revealed that a legally armed citizen (or citizens) stopped a crime or prevented a violent attack by a human or an animal 2.5 million times per year. In only 8% of these incidents was the attacker k**led or wounded. This study was first published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, and it was later published in a book--Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America. This book has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award

Dr. Kleck's work was later confirmed by the DOJ (although the DOJ reduced the number of incidents by 1 million).

In “A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed,” Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, “What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator…. I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence.”

Research directed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reveals that guns are used 16 to 100 times more often to protect life than to take life. That means there are a whole lot of “guns save lives stories” not being reported.

Now that we have a defensible foundation for the right of law abiding Americans to carry a gun along with credible statistics backing it up, let's ask the question: If a legally armed citizen stops a crime or an attack 1 or 2 million times per year, how many lives are saved?

Rose42

Thats a rather hysterical reaction. Its also based on emotion.

For perspective - alcohol is far more dangerous and causes far more deaths than guns. 88,000 vs a few hundred in mass shootings. Tell their families their deaths mean less.

https://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-163695-1.html

Larai Loc: Fallon, NV

Excellent!! Thank you!!

Tug484

What part of shall not infringe do you not understand?
My friend worked for FEMA and drug out more bodies from a lot of countries than I can imagine.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

———————-


Below is Chief Justice Burger’s article, in its entirety.
Here’s the link to his article, too.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/05/john-paul-stevens-court-failed-gun-control/587272/

I’m afraid you ardent 2nd Amendment followers will be disappointed.

BTW: I own several firearms, pistols, revolvers, even an AR and an AK. I’m not wanting to eliminate private gun ownership. I do believe we need to treat firearms as what they are designed to do, k**l and maim.

I’m in favor of much more stringent gun control. I would like to see all gun owners be required to register ALL their firearms.I’d like to see all owners show proof of liability insurance before they can buy a firearm. Owners should be required to demonstrate their ability to safely operate, carry, store, break-down, clean and re-assemble each of their firearms. I believe owners should be retested periodically to demonstrate their proficiencies in these aforementioned categories.

Additionally, there should be a ban on high capacity magazines/clips. Why does anyone need a 30 round clip to hunt with? If you can’t k**l your game with 1-2 shots, you need to return to the range as you’re a danger to fellow h****rs.

And, that line about needing your guns to protect yourselves from the government. That’s total BS. The government has a constitutional right to protect itself from armed i**********n and revolution. Look it up. Can you say, “Civil War?”

No matter how well armed you think you are, our military is far better armed than you ever could be. Care to go up against a tank? Do you have any air cover? Do you have any satellites pinpointing the locations of your targets? Any artillery? Navy? Didn’t think so.

**

“The Supreme Court’s Worst Decision of My Tenure

“District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution. Here’s why the case was wrongly decided.

“MAY 14, 2019
John Paul Stevens
Former associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

“ASSOCIATED PRESS

“District of Columbia v. Heller, which recognized an individual right to possess a firearm under the Constitution, is unquestionably the most clearly incorrect decision that the Supreme Court announced during my tenure on the bench.

“The text of the Second Amendment unambiguously explains its purpose: “A well regulated m*****a, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” When it was adopted, the country was concerned that the power of Congress to disarm the state m*****as and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several states.

“This article was adapted from The Making of a Justice: Reflections on My First 94 Years, by John Paul Stevens.
Throughout most of American history there was no federal objection to laws regulating the civilian use of firearms. When I joined the Supreme Court in 1975, both state and federal judges accepted the Court’s unanimous decision in United States v. Miller as having established that the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to bear arms was possessed only by members of the m*****a and applied only to weapons used by the m*****a. In that case, the Court upheld the indictment of a man who possessed a short-barreled shotgun, writing, “In the absence of any evidence that the possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated m*****a, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.”

“Colonial history contains many examples of firearm regulations in urban areas that imposed obstacles to their use for protection of the home. Boston, Philadelphia, and New York—the three largest cities in America at that time—all imposed restrictions on the firing of guns in the city limits. Boston enacted a law in 1746 prohibiting the “discharge” of any gun or pistol that was later revived in 1778; Philadelphia prohibited firing a gun or setting off fireworks without a governor’s special license; and New York banned the firing of guns for three days surrounding New Year’s Day. Those and other cities also regulated the storage of gunpowder. Boston’s gunpowder law imposed a 10-pound fine on any person who took any loaded firearm into any dwelling house or barn within the town. Most, if not all, of those regulations would violate the Second Amendment as it was construed in the 5–4 decision that Justice Antonin Scalia announced in Heller on June 26, 2008.

“Until Heller, the invalidity of Second Amendment–based objections to firearms regulations had been uncontroversial. The first two federal laws directly restricting the civilian use and possession of firearms—the 1927 act prohibiting mail delivery of handguns and the 1934 act prohibiting the possession of sawed-off shotguns and machine guns—were enacted over minor Second Amendment objections that were dismissed by the vast majority of legislators participating in the debates. After reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by Scalia in his majority opinion in Heller, the Miller Court unanimously concluded that the Second Amendment did not apply to the possession of a firearm that did not have “some relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated m*****a.” And in 1980, in a footnote to an opinion upholding a conviction for receipt of a firearm, the Court effectively affirmed Miller, writing: “[T]he Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ‘some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated m*****a.’”

“So well settled was the issue that, speaking on the PBS NewsHour in 1991, the retired Chief Justice Warren Burger described the National Rifle Association’s lobbying in support of an expansive interpretation of the Second Amendment in these terms: “One of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special-interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

“Even if the lobbyists who oppose gun-control regulation actually do endorse the dubious proposition that the Second Amendment was intended to limit the federal power to regulate the civilian use of handguns—that Burger incorrectly accused them of “fraud”—I find it incredible that policy makers in a democratic society have failed to impose more effective regulations on the ownership and use of firearms than they have.

“And even if there were some merit to the legal arguments advanced in the Heller case, all could foresee the negative consequences of the decision, which should have provided my colleagues with the justification needed to apply stare decisis to Miller. At a minimum, it should have given them greater pause before announcing such a radical change in the law that would greatly tie the hands of state and national lawmakers endeavoring to find solutions to the gun problem in America. Their twin failure—first, the misreading of the intended meaning of the Second Amendment, and second, the failure to respect settled precedent—represents the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court’s history.

“It also represents my greatest disappointment as a member of the Court. After the oral argument and despite the narrow v**e at our conference about the case, I continued to think it possible to persuade either Justice Anthony Kennedy or Justice Clarence Thomas to change his v**e. During the drafting process, I had frequent conversations with Kennedy, as well as occasional discussions with Thomas, about historical issues, because I thought each of them had an open mind about the case. In those discussions—particularly those with Kennedy—I now realize that I failed to emphasize sufficiently the human aspects of the issue as providing unanswerable support for the stare decisis argument for affirmance. After all, Kennedy had been one of the three decisive v**es that had saved Roe v. Wade from being overruled in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

“Before the argument, I had decided that stare decisis provided a correct and sufficient basis for upholding the challenged gun regulation, but I nonetheless asked my especially competent law clerk, Kate Shaw, to make a thorough study of the merits of the argument that an independent review of the historical materials would lead to the same result. I wanted that specific study to help me decide which argument to feature in my dissent, which I planned to complete and circulate before Scalia completed his opinion for the majority. Shaw convinced me that Miller had been correctly decided; accordingly, I decided to feature both arguments in my dissent, which we were able to circulate on April 28, 2008, five weeks before Scalia circulated the majority opinion on June 2, 2008. In the cover memorandum for my probable dissent, I wrote:

‘The enclosed memorandum explains the basis for my firm belief that the Second Amendment does not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of the federal government to regulate the non-military use or possession of firearms. I have decided to take the unusual step of circulating the initial draft of a probable dissent before [Scalia] circulates his majority because I fear the members of the majority have not yet adequately considered the unusual importance of their decision.

‘While I think a fair reading of history provides overwhelming support for Warren Burger’s view of the merits, even if we assume that the present majority is correct, I submit that they have not given adequate consideration to the certain impact of their proposed decision on this Court’s role in preserving the rule of law. We have profound differences over our role in areas of the law such as the Eighth Amendment and substantive due process, but I believe we all agree that there are areas of policy-making in which judges have a special obligation to let the democratic process run the show …

‘What has happened that could possibly justify such a massive change in the law? The text of the amendment has not changed. The history leading up to the adoption of the amendment has not changed … There has been a change in the views of some law professors, but I assume there are also some professors out there who think Congress does not have the authority to authorize a national bank, or to regulate small firms engaged in the production of goods for sale in other states, or to enact a graduated income tax. In my judgment, none of the arguments advanced by respondents or their numerous amici justify judicial entry into a quintessential area of policy-making in which there is no special need or justification for judicial supervision.

‘This is not a case in which either side of the policy debate can be characterized as an “insular minority” in need of special protection from the judiciary. On the contrary, there is a special risk that the action of the judiciary will be perceived as the product of policy arguments advanced by an unusually powerful political force. Because there is still time to avoid a serious and totally unnecessary self-inflicted wound, I urge each of the members of the majority to give careful consideration to the impact of this decision on the future of this institution when weighing the strength of the arguments I have set forth in what I hope will not be a dissent.

‘In the end, of course, beating Scalia to the punch did not change the result, but I do think it forced him to significantly revise his opinion to respond to the points I raised in my dissent. And although I failed to persuade Kennedy to change his v**e, I think our talks may have contributed to his insisting on some important changes before signing on to the Court’s opinion.

“That’s cold comfort. I have written in other contexts that an amendment to the Constitution to overrule Heller is desperately needed to prevent tragedies such as the massacre of 20 grammar-school children at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, from ever happening again. But such tragedies have indeed happened again. In the course of writing the chapter of my memoir that discusses Heller, on October 1, 2017, a gunman fired from the 32nd floor of a hotel in Las Vegas, k*****g at least 58 people and injuring more than 500 more who were attending an outdoor concert. I had not yet finished the chapter when another mass shooting occurred, this one involving the death of 26 people—including three generations of a single family—at a church on November 5, 2017, in Sutherland Springs, Texas. More shootings have happened since.”