SCOTUS takes new gun case ... is this...

SCOTUS takes new gun case ... is this a Heller tea leaf?

There are 7 comments on the Sentencing Law and Policy story from Mar 24, 2008, titled SCOTUS takes new gun case ... is this a Heller tea leaf?. In it, Sentencing Law and Policy reports that:

I am sure regular readers are tired of me linking the Heller Second Amendment case to various sentencing issues, but a new Supreme Court cert.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Sentencing Law and Policy.


“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#1 Mar 24, 2008
"The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."

It really isn't that difficult of a proposition to understand, IS IT?

"[Origin: 1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in-2 +-fringere, comb. form of frangere to break]" -

"INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses."

- WEBSTER'S 1828 DICTIONARY: By Noah Webster



“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#2 Mar 24, 2008
The following explains our God-given, Inherent and Inalienable Natural Right as it was INTENDED by the men whom framed our Constitution:

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government ... The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms..."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution; and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. Its intrinsic merit entitles it to this high rank; and the part two of its authors performed in framing the constitution, put it very much in their power to explain the views with which it was framed..."

- Chief Justice John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court, Cohens v. Virginia (1821).

"Also, the conditions and circumstances of the period require a finding that while the stated purpose of the right to arms was to secure a well-regulated militia, the right to self-defense was assumed by the Framers."

- John Marshall, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice.[As quoted in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846); State v. Dawson, 272 N.C. 535, 159 S.E.2d 1, 9 (1968).]

“Afforded us by God & Nature”

“Agreed to found our Rights upon the Laws of Nature....”

“...Which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...”

Life, Liberty and Property

George Washington: Concerning Arms in the hands of the People

"the overruling law of self preservation"

'for the common defence'(?)

"Rights of the citizen declared to be --"

"The Right to Self Defense"

"The right of self-defence never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."

- President James Monroe, Nov. 16, 1818 message to the U.S. House and Senate.[Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, November 17th, 1818.]

Right to Keep and Bear Arms - Historical Directories:



After The Fact

Amendment II and the Law

"No, surely, No! they meant to drive us into what they termed rebellion, that they might be furnished with a pretext to disarm and then strip us of the rights and privileges of Englishmen and Citizens."

- George Washington, March 1, 1778 letter to Bryan Fairfax, Valley forge.


“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#3 Mar 24, 2008
Self-Defense and the United States Supreme Court:

Wiggins v. State Of Utah, Oct. Term, 1876.

Starr v. U.S., May 14, 1894.

Thompson v. U.S., Dec. 3, 1894.

Allen v. U.S., April 8, 1895.

Beard v. U.S., May 27, 1895.

Allison v. U.S., Dec. 16, 1895.

Smith v. U.S., March 2, 1896.

Brown v. Walker, March 23, 1896.

Stevenson v. U.S., April 13, 1896.

Wallace v. U.S., April 20, 1896.

Rowe v. U.S., Nov. 30, 1896.

Patsone v. Com. Of Pennsylvania, Jan. 19, 1914.

BROWN v. UNITED STATES, "if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeeded the bounds of lawful self defence", 256 U.S. 335 (1921).

Missouri Pac. R. CO. v. David, U.S. Supreme Court, "He carried a pistol and sawed-off shot gun 'for the purpose of defending himself", Feb. 15, 1932

Adamson v. People Of State Of California, June 23, 1947.

"It was demanded by a great and overruling necessity...... This great law of necessity-of defence of self, of home, and of country-never was designed to be abrogated by any statute, or by any constitution."

- Mr.[(Formerly Major-General), Benjamin Franklin] Butler, ON THE SIDE OF THE UNITED STATES, EX PARTE MILLIGAN, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. Term, 1866.

"Blackstone thought it was important. Blackstone thought it was important. He thought the right of self-defense was inherent, and the framers were devoted to Blackstone. Joseph Story, the first commentator on the Constitution and a member of this Court, thought it was a personal guarantee."

- Justice Scalia,[DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. Dick Anthony Heller] March 18, 2008.


“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#4 Mar 24, 2008
The REAL ORIGINAL INTENT behind the Second Amendment:

The Shay's Insurrection, "These the Legislature could not infringe, without bringing upon themselves the detestation of mankind, and the frowns of Heaven", Jan. 12, 1787

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "and shall obtain an order for the re-delivery of such arms", Feb. 16, 1787

Journals of the Continental Congress, "...impolitic and not to be reconciled with the genius of free Govts...", Feb. 19. 1787

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...An Act to disarm and Disfranchise for three years...", Feb. 27th, 1787

Letters of Delegates to Congress, "...this act has created more universal disgust than any other of Government...", March 6, 1787

Journals of the Continental Congress, "That a large body of armed insurgents, did make their appearance...", March 13, 1787

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "a great proportion of the offenders chuse rather to risk the consequences of their treason, than submit to the conditions annexed to the amnesty", March 19, 1787

A Proclamation, "and of being again renewed to the arms of their country, and once more enjoying the rights of free citizens of the Commonwealth", June 15, 1787

The Debates in the Federal Convention, "...let the citizens of Massachusetts be disarmed.... It would be regarded as a system of despotism.", Aug. 23, 1787

James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, "A constitutional negative on the laws of the States seems equally necessary to secure individuals agst. encroachments on their rights", Oct. 24, 1787

"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independent 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order. I hope in God this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted."

- Thomas Jefferson, Nov. 13, 1787 letter to William S. Smith.

That's RIGHT people, it was intended to SECURE the God-given, Natural, Inherent and Inalienable Right of those that HAD transgressed the law. ALL 'gun control laws' are REPUGNANT to the U.S. Constitution.

“Witch King of Angmar”

Since: Mar 08

Location hidden

#5 Mar 26, 2008
GunShowOnTheNet wrote:
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Repeat that all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that the right can be and has been infringed, repeatedly, in this country.

“Tu ne cede malis”

Since: Dec 06

Lots of different places

#6 Mar 26, 2008
Mock26 wrote:
<quoted text> Repeat that all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that the right can be and has been infringed, repeatedly, in this country.
And you agree with that infringement?


“Shall NOT be infringed.”

Since: Dec 06

Phoenix, AZ.

#7 Mar 26, 2008
Mock26 wrote:
<quoted text> Repeat that all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that the right can be and has been infringed, repeatedly, in this country.
And >YOU< certainly seem to derive some perverse pleasure out of seeing your fellow citizens God-given, Inherent Natural Right infringed upon. What kind of a sick, twisted and treasonous p.o.s. are you anyways?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Marion County Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Industrial Home for Youth (Jun '10) Oct '16 Weeks 70
Jailbird (Sep '16) Sep '16 mamabear63 1
News Ex-coach charged with molesting 2 more W.Va. boys (Feb '13) Aug '16 Carnie 22
Rednecks on their ATVs (Mar '16) Mar '16 The punisher 1
stephen sean murphy (Jan '13) Feb '16 1ofMurphysvictums 9
News Fairmont police investigate armed robbery; susp... (Oct '15) Feb '16 TRUTH 4
News New public shooting range opening in West Virginia (Nov '13) Oct '15 Liberal 12
More from around the web