Krulick gets schooled!
First Prev
of 3
Next Last
leitzal

Latham, NY

#1 May 27, 2011
When the going gets tough, Krulick gets out.

http://www.topix.com/issue/gun-control/ellenv...

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#2 May 27, 2011
What the hell are you talking about? On May 20 I noted that the thread had been effectively hijacked by Highlander, who was just spamming the forum with tons of irrelevant cut and paste material from some other forum, and then there was the slander about me as some kind of Nazi, and so AT THAT POINT indicated I was letting it go as being a dead thread, as far as I was concerned:

Bob2bob wrote:
"Steve, he did the same thing to me. He SWORE he'd keep 'spamming' me until I 'went away.' He's not wired right."

You may be right. It's the tactic of the bully who can't play by the rules of debate. It's like a guy who comes into your house, tracks mud all over, pisses on your couch, knocks over your books, and dumps bags of trash he brought in on your dining room table.

I will not answer him anymore, as he has nothing of his own to say worth dealing with; at least legaleagle, who posted his own words and TRIED to use support material, got the message and politely left. I have said all I need to say on this issue, for those who can read what I said previously, or who go to my site of essays. That is all I need to say.

This forum thread has reached it's useful limit.
Krulick
Friday May 20

---

Moore wrote:
"Krulick is the epitome of a jackbooted thug. Bet he has relatives that were officers at Auschwitz and Buchenwald."

How so? Actually, I'm a non-violent advocating Gandhian; I just resent bullies storming in here and taking over like, well, like jackbooted thugs!

Oh, and I probably had some distant cousins who were gassed and cremated there, shmuck.

Now that we've hit Godwin's law, I KNOW this thread has ceased to be useful.

---

At which point I had no reason to return to the thread, and didn't realize that legaleagle took advantage of my leaving to come back, after he said he was leaving, and he just went on posting one-sided comments that did NOT refute what I had said or was in my essays at all, but just blatantly asserted that what he opined was FACT, or posted misrepresentations of what I did say.

So, it had nothing to do with the going getting tough, and me getting out because of something that came LATER than that, but rather of me announcing that there was no point in me responding to spammers like highlander or slanderers like moore after I said what I said.

Having now looked over legaleagle's posts, I find he hasn't refuted what I've said, he is still posting opinion as fact, and thus, there is no "schooling" of me by him. I'm preparing for a trip that will take up most of my time the next few days, but if I can find the time, I will respond to him, even though simply reading the essays I linked to would address every point or question he raised, which suggests he either didn't read it all, or didn't comprehend it.
Cuomo

East Berne, NY

#3 May 28, 2011
Krulick wrote:
What the hell are you talking about? On May 20 I noted that the thread had been effectively hijacked by Highlander, who was just spamming the forum with tons of irrelevant cut and paste material from some other forum, and then there was the slander about me as some kind of Nazi, and so AT THAT POINT indicated I was letting it go as being a dead thread, as far as I was concerned:
Bob2bob wrote:
"Steve, he did the same thing to me. He SWORE he'd keep 'spamming' me until I 'went away.' He's not wired right."
You may be right. It's the tactic of the bully who can't play by the rules of debate. It's like a guy who comes into your house, tracks mud all over, pisses on your couch, knocks over your books, and dumps bags of trash he brought in on your dining room table.
I will not answer him anymore, as he has nothing of his own to say worth dealing with; at least legaleagle, who posted his own words and TRIED to use support material, got the message and politely left. I have said all I need to say on this issue, for those who can read what I said previously, or who go to my site of essays. That is all I need to say.
This forum thread has reached it's useful limit.
Krulick
Friday May 20
---
Moore wrote:
"Krulick is the epitome of a jackbooted thug. Bet he has relatives that were officers at Auschwitz and Buchenwald."
How so? Actually, I'm a non-violent advocating Gandhian; I just resent bullies storming in here and taking over like, well, like jackbooted thugs!
Oh, and I probably had some distant cousins who were gassed and cremated there, shmuck.
Now that we've hit Godwin's law, I KNOW this thread has ceased to be useful.
---
At which point I had no reason to return to the thread, and didn't realize that legaleagle took advantage of my leaving to come back, after he said he was leaving, and he just went on posting one-sided comments that did NOT refute what I had said or was in my essays at all, but just blatantly asserted that what he opined was FACT, or posted misrepresentations of what I did say.
So, it had nothing to do with the going getting tough, and me getting out because of something that came LATER than that, but rather of me announcing that there was no point in me responding to spammers like highlander or slanderers like moore after I said what I said.
Having now looked over legaleagle's posts, I find he hasn't refuted what I've said, he is still posting opinion as fact, and thus, there is no "schooling" of me by him. I'm preparing for a trip that will take up most of my time the next few days, but if I can find the time, I will respond to him, even though simply reading the essays I linked to would address every point or question he raised, which suggests he either didn't read it all, or didn't comprehend it.
Nice spin but you DID get schooled because you never went back to refute what the poster named legaleagle posted. Is that because you're afraid t get owned again?

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#4 May 28, 2011
Cuomo wrote:
<quoted text>Nice spin but you DID get schooled because you never went back to refute what the poster named legaleagle posted. Is that because you're afraid t get owned again?
No, since I didn't go back to READ anything in the thread, for the reasons mentioned, how could I be "schooled" by it? Having NOW looked at it, and seeing that HE didn't refute what *I* had said (blatant assertions, and irrelevant asides don't refute), and what was in MY linked essays, any refutation by me wasn't necessary, because the refuting response was already in previous postings by me, and IN the essays. So how could I be "owned" much less "owned again," if I had never been "owned" in the first place?

You want "schooling"? Then I suggest YOU read my essays at http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/ and LEARN what legaleagle and the others refuse to learn.

Finally, I said that, barring time constraints, I WILL respond to the posts that came AFTER I decided to let the spammed thread drop, not knowing that legaleagle, who said he'd STOP posting in an Ellenville forum thread, decided to go back on his word AFTER I said I was not going to respond to it further.

Anyway, what's it to YOU?
legaleagle45

Kent, WA

#5 May 28, 2011
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
No, since I didn't go back to READ anything in the thread, for the reasons mentioned, how could I be "schooled" by it? Having NOW looked at it, and seeing that HE didn't refute what *I* had said (blatant assertions, and irrelevant asides don't refute), and what was in MY linked essays, any refutation by me wasn't necessary, because the refuting response was already in previous postings by me, and IN the essays. So how could I be "owned" much less "owned again," if I had never been "owned" in the first place?
You want "schooling"? Then I suggest YOU read my essays at http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/ and LEARN what legaleagle and the others refuse to learn.
Finally, I said that, barring time constraints, I WILL respond to the posts that came AFTER I decided to let the spammed thread drop, not knowing that legaleagle, who said he'd STOP posting in an Ellenville forum thread, decided to go back on his word AFTER I said I was not going to respond to it further.
Anyway, what's it to YOU?
To establish my credibility, I will point out an obvious error which you will probably admit to. You assert that Perpich v DoD stands for the proposition that the National Guard is the one and only "well regulated militia" currently in existence in the US today. Thus, the web page asserts:

"In Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court squarely rejected the NRA’s argument that the modern-day militia is not confined to the National Guard."

http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Terms.htm

In truth and in fact, the existence of another entity as a "well regulated militia" was crucial to the decision in Perpich. Read Perpich carefully and see if you do not agree... espescially th9is part:

"Congress has provided by statute that in addition to its National Guard, a State may provide and maintain at its own expense a defense force that is exempt from being drafted into the Armed Forces of the United States. See 32 U.S.C. 109(c). As long as that provision remains in effect, there is no basis for an argument that the federal statutory scheme deprives Minnesota of any constitutional entitlement to a separate militia of its own."

The court footnotes that passage with this (footnote #25):

"The Governor contends that the state defense forces are irrelevant to this case because they are not subject to being called forth by the National Government and therefore cannot be militia within the meaning of the Constitution. We are not, however, satisfied that this argument is persuasive. First, the immunity of those forces from impressment into the national service appears - if indeed they have any such immunity - to be the consequence of a purely statutory choice, and it is not obvious why that choice should alter the constitutional status of the forces allowed the States. Second, although we do not believe it necessary to resolve the issue, the Governor's construction of the relevant statute is subject to question. It is true that the state defense forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces." 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the "militia" from the "armed forces," and which appear to subject all portions of the "militia" - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses. See n. 21, supra."

Your own state, New York, has such an entity. It is called "The New York Guard".

http://dmna.state.ny.us/nyg/nyg.php
legaleagle45

Kent, WA

#6 May 28, 2011
I assure you Krulick, I know this area of law and history much better than you and much better than you can even imagine. I hardly need to be educated by you on this subject, to the contrary...

You are aware that all 9 justices in Heller found that the 2nd is an individual right and not a collective right? There is a reason for that.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#7 May 28, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
<quoted text>
To establish my credibility, I will point out an obvious error which you will probably admit to. You assert that Perpich v DoD stands for the proposition that the National Guard is the one and only "well regulated militia" currently in existence in the US today.
That's either an outright disingenuous lie, or a misrepresentation of what I said, or you don't comprehend what I said or what the case's extent is, which seriously challenges your "credibility"

Where did *I* or the ruling state that the National Guard was the "one and only well-regulated militia currently in existence in the US today"?! That's a strawman misrepresentation.

I am well aware of the existence of state defense forces. Indeed, since the establishment of the National Guard in its current from since 1903, the creation of the state forces is perhaps the ONLY relevant and explicit USE of the 2nd amendment AS INTENDED (the 10th also applying), in the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE (or THE STATE, which, in this context, is the same; see Bouvier Law Dictionary) to collectively keep and bear arms as a duly-formed and regulated militia. I believe I may have mentioned this in one of the essays, but I certainly have confirmed this in various newsgroups over the years.

The point though, which YOU misrepresent, is that I or the ruling stated anything more than that the National Guard (Army or Air National Guard) is the ONLY militia that the Constitution refers to in Article 1 and elsewhere, the one the President or Congress can call forth or that it organizes or arms:
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;

THIS is the only militia the constitution refers to here, and is whatever Congress determines it to be. After it was determined the Militia Act of 1792 was outdated, the National Guard was created as the new organized militia. This did NOT preclude other state-created militias, obviously, because the 2nd Amendment and 10th specifically ALLOW that to be. But that is STILL a COLLECTIVE right of THE PEOPLE, as the enfranchised body politic, to keep and bear arms as a militia. There are no "individual" militias!

So, to be clear: the National Guard is TODAY's ORGANIZED, well-regulated militia the constitution specifically refers to in its body whenever the term "Militia" is mentioned. Any other state-created and "well-regulated" (acting under regulations, as Hamilton stated) militia is sanctioned under the 2nd and 10th Amendments, but this is still based on the meaning of each term as I've shown, and still is proof the 2nd Amendment is a MILITIA amendment, and has nothing in its language and intent to make it an "individual right" amendment... except as follows.

Of course, there would have been the individual right in the clause the Senate removed, of PERSONS religiously scrupulous not having to "bear arms in person" (proof "bear arms" here has a strictly military meaning!). AND the individual DISTRIBUTIVE right of individual members of THE PEOPLE CLASS ONLY (in 1789, enfranchised free white males of voting age -- sometimes also restricted to property-owners -- not otherwise restricted) to serve IN the militia if qualified, AND to vote for the state legislators who controlled the state militias. THAT is the individual DISTRIBUTIVE right beyond the collective right; no other is in the language, history, context, intent, law.

Please, define "individual right" and show WHERE the language is IN the 2nd Amendment that supports any other than what I explained above or in my essays in greater detail.
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#8 May 28, 2011
Krulick wrote: "Where did *I* or the ruling state that the National Guard was the "one and only well-regulated militia currently in existence in the US today"?! That's a strawman misrepresentation."

Obviously the ruling did not. However your web page said exactly that, to wit:

"In Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court squarely rejected the NRA’s argument that the modern-day militia is not confined to the National Guard."

http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Terms.htm

Do you deny that?

Krulick wrote: "I am well aware of the existence of state defense forces. Indeed, since the establishment of the National Guard in its current from since 1903, the creation of the state forces is perhaps the ONLY relevant and explicit USE of the 2nd amendment AS INTENDED (the 10th also applying)"

Interesting that Perpich did not mention the 2nd whatsoever. But the 10th is important is the 2nd Amend debate. It's intended purpose is provide the states concurrent power to arm and discipline the militia in the event the feds fail to do so.

Krulick wrote: "The point though, which YOU misrepresent, is that I or the ruling stated anything more than that the National Guard (Army or Air National Guard) is the ONLY militia that the Constitution refers to in Article 1 and elsewhere, the one the President or Congress can call forth or that it organizes or arms"

Of course you are wrong... read footnote 25 in Perpich again:
"The Governor contends that the state defense forces are irrelevant to this case because they are not subject to being called forth by the National Government and therefore cannot be militia within the meaning of the Constitution. We are not, however, satisfied that this argument is persuasive. First, the immunity of those forces from impressment into the national service appears - if indeed they have any such immunity - to be the consequence of a purely statutory choice, and it is not obvious why that choice should alter the constitutional status of the forces allowed the States. Second, although we do not believe it necessary to resolve the issue, the Governor's construction of the relevant statute is subject to question. It is true that the state defense forces "may not be called, ordered, or drafted into the armed forces." 32 U.S.C. 109(c). It is nonetheless possible that they are subject to call under 10 U.S.C. 331-333, which distinguish the "militia" from the "armed forces," and which appear to subject all portions of the "militia" - organized or not - to call if needed for the purposes specified in the Militia Clauses."

continued...

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#9 May 28, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
I assure you Krulick, I know this area of law and history much better than you and much better than you can even imagine. I hardly need to be educated by you on this subject, to the contrary...
You are aware that all 9 justices in Heller found that the 2nd is an individual right and not a collective right? There is a reason for that.
ASSURE ME? How do YOU KNOW what I know, or that YOU KNOW more? I'm reminded of what was said of Ronald Reagan: "It's not what he doesn't know that concerns me, but what he knows that's wrong!" From what I read of your blatant assertions and irrelevant cites that ignore the relevant material I submitted, I see no reason to bow down to your claims of self-importance.

All you have to do is specifically REFUTE what I've cited; in extreme judicial over-reach, the current rogue activist and amnesiac SCotUS just scrapped 200 year plus of clear and consistent understanding without referring to relevant source material in Heller (other than in the dissent by Stevens, which got the language and history at least 95% correct, compared to the bogus or irrelevant or out-of-context material Scalia cited). They just created a right that had no previous SCotUS recognition:

Richard Posner, judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, compares Heller to Roe v. Wade inasmuch as it created a federal constitutional right that did not previously exist, and he asserts that the originalist method—to which Justice Antonin Scalia adheres—would have yielded the opposite result of the majority opinion.

"The text of the amendment, whether viewed alone or in light of the concerns that actuated its adoption, creates no right to the private possession of guns for hunting or other sport, or for the defense of person or property. It is doubtful that the amendment could even be thought to require that members of state militias be allowed to keep weapons in their homes, since that would reduce the militias' effectiveness."

WHERE do all nine agree to the SAME individual right? It was a 5-4 ruling, THAT CLOSE to going the other way. DEFINE that right, and show where that concern prompted the FEDERALISTS to pry it into THEIR Constitution! I cited 200 years plus of consistent interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment meant; the Heller Five just tossed it and stare decisis with it:

US v MILLER
307 U.S. 174 (1939)
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#11 May 28, 2011
Krulick wrote: "ASSURE ME? How do YOU KNOW what I know, or that YOU KNOW more?"

Because I am a professional and there are about 50 people in the entire world who have comparable knowledge of the subject matter as I do. The fact is, your error in Perpich displays a very deep misunderstanding of the ruling and of what a militia is. The National Guard is not a militia when called into federal service. You do not seem to understand that, but that is exactly what Perpich explains and why exactly the Congress could ignore the Militia clauses in the Constitution.

I note you did not even attempt to refute my assertion that you were wrong about Perpich. Please do not deflect and do not try insult. Can we have an intelligent discussion?

Krulick wrote: "All you have to do is specifically REFUTE what I've cited; in extreme judicial over-reach, the current rogue activist and amnesiac SCotUS just scrapped 200 year plus of clear and consistent understanding"

Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.(3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871) are all in disagreement with you.. then we have this:

<<8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.

This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.>>

Tuckers Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D

You do know who St George Tucker was, I assume?
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#12 May 28, 2011
Krulick wrote: "WHERE do all nine agree to the SAME individual right? It was a 5-4 ruling, THAT CLOSE to going the other way. DEFINE that right, and show where that concern prompted the FEDERALISTS to pry it into THEIR Constitution! I cited 200 years plus of consistent interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment meant; the Heller Five just tossed it and stare decisis with it"

Where did I say they all agreed it was the same individual right. What I said was that all 9 Justices found that the 2nd protects an individual right, not a collective right. Thus throwing on the ashbin of history such cases as Hickman v Block and Silveira v. Lockyer. You understand that, right?

Krulick wrote:"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

And once you understand that the very best way to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces is to protect a broadbased preexisting individual right to arms for personal purposes... then and only then will you understand the 2nd Amend.

So, do you now agree that the 2nd protects an individual right, or are you going to insist that all nine justices in Heller were wrong?

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#13 May 28, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
Krulick wrote: "ASSURE ME? How do YOU KNOW what I know, or that YOU KNOW more?"
Because I am a professional and there are about 50 people in the entire world who have comparable knowledge of the subject matter as I do.
So you humbly claim. But as they say, professionals built the Titanic, while amateurs built the Ark. And as I alluded, it's not what you don't know, but what you "know" that's wrong. Nothing you have said refutes the vast edifice of support material I've built, particularly when you ignore 99.99% of it to focus on nit-picking strawman misrepresentations of what I said, or leave out the parts that clarify them.
The fact is,
No, your OPINION!
your error in Perpich
No, there was NO error in Perpich, only your strawman misrepresentation, first, by misquoting what was said, then by leaving out the sentence following that showed your strawman claim to be bogus.
displays a very deep misunderstanding of the ruling and of what a militia is.
IF all that I said was this one line, which I said wasn't mine but a commentary that was with the ruling, maybe... But since I had PAGES of additional material, plus hundreds of posts on newsgroups that you don't even know about, your presumption about my knowledge is over-reaching.
The National Guard is not a militia when called into federal service.
Irrelevant to the germane points here, side-stepper.
You do not seem to understand that,
You don't know what I understand, but it wasn't germane to the points I raised, which you still ignore to focus on trivial nits.
but that is exactly what Perpich explains and why exactly the Congress could ignore the Militia clauses in the Constitution.
Irrelevant. Doesn't change what the 2nd Amendment says or means.
I note you did not even attempt to refute my assertion that you were wrong about Perpich.
Because I wasn't.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#14 May 28, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
Please do not deflect and do not try insult. Can we have an intelligent discussion?
Whenever you want to start one that doesn't presume to tell me what I don't understand or know, or that YOUR strawman version of MY words are operative.
Krulick wrote: "All you have to do is specifically REFUTE what I've cited; in extreme judicial over-reach, the current rogue activist and amnesiac SCotUS just scrapped 200 year plus of clear and consistent understanding"
Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 Ky.(2 Litt.) 90, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822); Nunn v. State, 1 Ga.(1 Kel.) 243 (1846); Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn.(3 Heisk.) 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8 (1871) are all in disagreement with you..
And the many more dozens of rulings cited in http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Courts.htm which trump your rulings (many of which were superceded or only dealt with state constitutions) disagree with YOU, and they are more relevant to the key points you ignore.
then we have this:
<<8. 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. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4.
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.>>
Tuckers Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D
You do know who St George Tucker was, I assume?
Yes, and Joseph Story trumps him on this "palladium" commentary, as do all the other RELEVANT cites I've posted in my essays. Blackstone is weak tea, as are most references to English law.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#15 May 29, 2011
legaleagle45 wrote:
Krulick wrote: "WHERE do all nine agree to the SAME individual right? It was a 5-4 ruling, THAT CLOSE to going the other way. DEFINE that right, and show where that concern prompted the FEDERALISTS to pry it into THEIR Constitution! I cited 200 years plus of consistent interpretations of what the 2nd Amendment meant; the Heller Five just tossed it and stare decisis with it"
Where did I say they all agreed it was the same individual right. What I said was that all 9 Justices found that the 2nd protects an individual right, not a collective right.
And YOU haven't defined that individual right, or who it applies to, and to what extent, or how it may be restricted, or which NOT SAME ones THEY "found" buried for over 200 years! So, if it isn't the SAME individual right, which DIFFERING ones do they "agree" on. Post it right here -->
Thus throwing on the ashbin of history such cases as Hickman v Block and Silveira v. Lockyer. You understand that, right?
I understand that those two cases and the dozens of others I cited were firmly grounded in a continuous thread of understanding the language and context of the 2nd Amendment and stare decisis rather than creating rights that the language doesn't support, suggesting that at least five SCotUS justices are either ignorant of the language and context or simply bowed to political pressure and personal ideology.
Krulick wrote:"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces [the well regulated militia referred to in the previous sentences] the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
And once you understand that the very best way to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces is to protect a broadbased preexisting individual right to arms for personal purposes...
So, to whom does that "individual right" pertain? HOW does the personal ownership of a handgun by a 70-year-old grandmother (an individual who would NEVER serve in the militia) improve the "effectivenes" of the militia? NO court before Heller ever answered that primary question except to laugh it to scorn. AND now, since the militia of the Constitution, the National Guard, is fully armed by the federal govt, as Miller pointed out, it's ludicrous to see how the owning of a weapon that would NOT be used in the service of making the militia more "effective" (NOT the weapon itself, but that the person owning it, such as bootlegger Miller, who would never be called to use ANY weapon in the militia) is supported by the 2nd Amen.
then and only then will you understand the 2nd Amend.
That's your opinion, and it's not supported by history, 200 plus years of what had been settled case law, language, or context. MY understanding is backed by the support evidence I posted in my essays YOU simply ignore. I await refutation of SPECIFIC support evidence as to the language, purposes, history, and contextual material I provided.
So, do you now agree that the 2nd protects an individual right,
I TOLD you what "individual" rights were involved, and they do NOT include the right of ANY person to "own and carry guns" independent of militia context. YOU have yet to define and limn that "individual" right in a way that conforms to language as used by the authors, the context they wrote it in, and the understanding by legal scholars who still KNEW what the words MEANT.
or are you going to insist that all nine justices in Heller were wrong?
Stevens and the other three were right in their dissent. SHOW ME where all nine agreed there was an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and where they "found" it in relevant source material. MY source material still stands as unrefuted, by you, them, or anyone.

“Just the FACTS!”

Since: Apr 10

Ellenville, NY

#16 May 29, 2011
I'm going to bed. I have to write a column when I get up, and prepare for a trip. When I get back in a week, I may continue on this thread, or on the other thread legaleagle dumped on, or not, if it's obvious he will NOT address my specific points, the main points of my essays, and just continue to bring up blatant assertions, irrelevant trivial side-steps and nit-picks, and otherwise fail to define terms and show where my support evidence is flawed in ways that MATTER, rather than just misrepresent, sling straw, or claim to know what I know or understand. Good night.
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#17 May 29, 2011
Krulick wrote:
No, there was NO error in Perpich, only your strawman misrepresentation, first, by misquoting what was said, then by leaving out the sentence following that showed your strawman claim to be bogus.
You can deny it all you wish. This is what the web site says:

"In Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990), the U.S. Supreme Court squarely rejected the NRA’s argument that the modern-day militia is not confined to the National Guard. In Perpich, the SCotUS confirmed that the National Guard IS the Militia the Constitution refers to."

Yet in Perpich the court clearly said that the modern day militia is not confined to the National Guard...that another well regulated militia exists.. and the existence of that other militia was crucial to the decision. So why not just admit you were wrong and move on?
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#18 May 29, 2011
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever you want to start one that doesn't presume to tell me what I don't understand or know, or that YOUR strawman version of MY words are operative.
<quoted text>
And the many more dozens of rulings cited in http://kryo.com/2ndAmen/Courts.htm which trump your rulings (many of which were superceded or only dealt with state constitutions) disagree with YOU, and they are more relevant to the key points you ignore.
<quoted text>
Yes, and Joseph Story trumps him on this "palladium" commentary, as do all the other RELEVANT cites I've posted in my essays. Blackstone is weak tea, as are most references to English law.
Well it is relatively clear that you do not understand exactly why the framers preferred a militia to a standing army.

In regards to St. George Tucker, why in your opinion does Story trump Tucker? My cases are not relevant, but yours are? Is it your opinion that we can safely disregard everything that disagrees with your opinion? Why are references to English law "weak tea"? Do we need to view the 2nd Amend in a vacuum and without historical context?

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution, William Rawle (1829) CHAPTER X. OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.:

<<The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more, or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to Protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.>>

So the two most influential Constitutional commentators of the founding era are to be ignored?

More...
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#19 May 29, 2011
Now lets turn to Story...

Your view of the influence of English law on the 2nd is directly contradicted by Story as he explains the influence of the Magna Charta and the English Bill of Rights and of Blackstone on the Bill of Rights in the US, including specifically the English right to arms. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, Joseph Story, AMENDMENTS-- CHAPTER XLIV, BILL OF RIGHTS § 1854

But lets see if Story actually "trumps" Tucker:

<<§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the bill of rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege.>>

So Story asserts that the right "of the CITIZENS to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the PALLADIUM of the liberties of a republic".. for this proposition he cites:

"1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300; Rawle on Const. ch. 10, p. 125; 2 Lloyd's Debates, 219, 220."

Story also asserts that the English Bill of Rights contains a "similar" provision. For this he cites:
5 Cobbett's Parl. Hist. p. 110; 1 Black. Comm. 143, 144; 1 Tucker's Black. Comm. App. 300.

Now let me get this straight.. Story calls it a right of "citizens", invokes Tuckers "true palladium of liberty" language, cites Tucker, cites Rawle, cites Blackstone and cites the English Bill of Rights and it is your position that Story supports your position and that we can safely disregard Tucker, Rawle, Blackstone and the English Bill of Rights?

Intersting...

What your problem seems to be is that you can not imagine why a broadbased individual right to arms which protects individual useage such as self defense, protects the well regulated militia militia from the abuses which were feared by the framers of the 2nd... and in fact the methodology of destroying the well regulated militia always involved disarming the individuals of their personal weapons...
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#20 May 29, 2011
Krulick wrote:
<quoted text>
And YOU haven't defined that individual right, or who it applies to, and to what extent, or how it may be restricted, or which NOT SAME ones THEY "found" buried for over 200 years! So, if it isn't the SAME individual right, which DIFFERING ones do they "agree" on. Post it right here -->
Nor have you defined the right articulated by your version of the 2nd. My version begins with the formulation of the 2nd that, in modern English, says this: "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It provides a reason for protecting an individual right because the individually owned weapons were the primary source of weapons
employed by the well regulated militia. To encourage and promote such widespread ownership so as to insure the availability of militia weapons, it was necessary to acknowledge a right to use those weapons for personal purposes. If that was not the case, and the weapons could only be employed within the context of a well regulated militia, there would be no incentive to own them and the well regulated militia would not be able to rely upon these individually owned weapons as a source of arms for the well regulated militia. Now the extent of such individual right was well defined under the English Bill of Rights, as follows:

"A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is traveling or going for the ordinary purposes of business."

The above is a common jury instruction employed by the English Courts to explain the extent of the right to arms protected by the English Bill of Rights and was first articulated in Rex v. Gardner, 87 Eng. Rep. 1240, 1241 (K.B. 1739). See, I REPORTS OF STATE TRIALS (New Series) 601-02(1970).

In fact most legal scholars adopt my view of the individual right:

"[The Second Amendment's] central purpose is to arm "We the People" so that ordinary citizens can participate in the collective defense of their community and their state. But it does so not through directly protecting a right on the part of states or other collectivities, assertable by them against the federal government, to arm the populace as they see fit. Rather the amendment achieves its central purpose by assuring that the federal government may not disarm individual citizens without some unusually strong justification consistent with the authority of the states to organize their own militias. That assurance in turn is provided through recognizing a right (admittedly of uncertain scope) on the part of individuals to possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes--not a right to hunt for game, quite clearly, and certainly not a right to employ firearms to commit aggressive acts against other persons--a right that directly limits action by Congress or by the Executive Branch and may well, in addition, be among the privileges or immunities of United States citizens protected by § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment against state or local government action." Laurence H. Tribe, 1 American Constitutional Law 902 n.221 [3d ed. 2000]

You do know who Laurence Tribe is? If not google him.

OK, now your turn... Please articulate you version of the 2nd. Who does it protect and what would constitute a violation thereof and has there ever been any cases which invoked that right so as to protect the well regulated militia, ever?
legaleagle45

Portland, OR

#21 May 29, 2011
Krulick wrote: "HOW does the personal ownership of a handgun by a 70-year-old grandmother (an individual who would NEVER serve in the militia) improve the "effectivenes" of the militia?"

It assures an adequate supply of weapons for use by the well regulated militia. The militia does not care whether Joe Militiaman owns the weapon himself or obtains that weapon from his 70 year old grandmother.

This is why many militia statutes of the colonial era required all persons to have arms, and not just members of the "well regulated militia". For example Connecticut statutes required every militiaman "and other house-holder" to have a firelock and ammunition..." Public Records of Connecticut, 8:379-83.

This follows English law concerning the militia. That militia system could be defined as similar to the one employed today, with just about everyone in the "unorganized militia" but with the "well regulated militia" consisting of "trained bands" which were composed of persons choosen by lot to receive extensive military training so as to be an effective fighting force. Yet the duty to have arms, as established by various statutes starting with the Assize of Arms in 1181 applied to everyone based upon property ownership, whether or not they were part of the "trained bands" or even part of the militia... "Every free layman who possesses chattels or rents to the value of 16m. shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every free layman possessing chattels or rents to the value of 10m. shall have a hauberk, an iron cap, and a lance..."

So apparently, the laws of that time considered it to be very important for a 70 year old grandmother to have arms so that they may be employed by the militia, even if she "would NEVER serve in the militia".

The reason for this is simple. Not everyone subject to militia service could afford arms. This shortfall is alleviated by the private ownership of arms by individuals not in the well regulated militia.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Walker Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Ellenville man faces multiple charges following... Jun 19 BIggie 1
Contractor- Aaron Smith (Mar '17) Jun '18 Homeowner 2
Why are the Christmas wreaths on Main street f... (Dec '13) May '18 LadyD 6
News Orange County Choppers' Mikey Teutul opens gall... (Nov '10) Feb '18 realist 173
What's in a name (Feb '06) Feb '18 Cindersgirl 4
News 4 truck drivers plead guilty to illegal dumping... (Aug '17) Feb '18 concerned 5
Debate: Gay Marriage - Walker Valley, NY (Sep '10) Jan '12 Kaitlyn 8

Walker Valley Jobs

Personal Finance

Walker Valley Mortgages