An Inalienable right

Sep 2017
107
19
Houston TX
It is pretty cut and dried that the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute. It was ruled so in the court rulings.
Please cite the Supreme Court ruling that “the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute”
In District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court stated
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

My ability to defend myself poses no more threat to you than your ability to scream fire in a theater.
Ridiculous. How many people have been killed from someone screaming “fire” in a theater? And how many have been killed by firearms?
 

LTP

Mar 2018
1,901
377
Undisclosed Bunker
Please cite the Supreme Court ruling that “the Right to keep and bear Arms is absolute”
In District of Columbia v Heller, the Supreme Court stated
“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”



Ridiculous. How many people have been killed from someone screaming “fire” in a theater? And how many have been killed by firearms?
This is fully explained in the OP. Lower courts declared that there were preexisting, absolute Rights and the FIRST time the Second Amendment was ruled on in the United States Supreme Court, they ruled, specifically that the Right to keep and bear Arms was not dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence.

The founders admonished us on HOW to interpret the Constitution. Do I have to go into that litany of quotes to show you or are you new to discussion boards?

From Wikipedia on the Heller decision:

"The court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", that the "right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution", also stating that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, "the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia."


The double talking in Heller is what is wrong with America. The United States Supreme Court is NOT EMPOWERED WITH ANY AUTHORITY TO OVER-RULE THEIR OWN DECISIONS. That is exactly what Heller decision tried to do. Granted, they have the POWER, but NOT the AUTHORITY. Contrary to what they told you, some Rights are absolute. If they weren't, the liberals would STFU when they lose to a majority vote. Put a few limitations on civil rights and watch the liberals squirm.

FWIW, this is not a debate about the information provided in the first post.
 
Last edited:
Sep 2017
107
19
Houston TX
This is fully explained in the OP. Lower courts declared that there were preexisting, absolute Rights and the FIRST time the Second Amendment was ruled on in the United States Supreme Court, they ruled, specifically that the Right to keep and bear Arms was not dependent on the Second Amendment for its existence.
“Preexisting” is not the same as unlimited. Neither is the phrase “not dependent on the Second Amendment”. Rights can be both “preexisting” and limited. Just as they can be both limited and “not dependent on the Second Amendment”. Is there any prior ruling that is contradicted by the SCOTUS statement that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”?

BTW, there is no need to refer to Wikipedia for DC v Heller. The actual SCOTUS ruling can be read here:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar
 

LTP

Mar 2018
1,901
377
Undisclosed Bunker
“Preexisting” is not the same as unlimited. Neither is the phrase “not dependent on the Second Amendment”. Rights can be both “preexisting” and limited. Just as they can be both limited and “not dependent on the Second Amendment”. Is there any prior ruling that is contradicted by the SCOTUS statement that “the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited”?

BTW, there is no need to refer to Wikipedia for DC v Heller. The actual SCOTUS ruling can be read here:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar
I have cited the entire Heller text many times.

What you've asked has been asked and answered many times and is not subject to your spin. Obviously you have a hard time with reading the opening posts, so lets' do civics 101:

1) America was founded on what are called First Principles

2) The reason for separating from King George came in the form of a document that the author, Thomas Jefferson said was the "declaratory charter of the Rights of man." You know this as the Declaration of Independence

3) The Constitution of the United States was ratified with the understanding that the Constitution could never be interpreted to deny to the citizenry those unalienable Rights that our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure

4) Among the foundational principles found in our declaratory charter and codified in the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment guarantees a Right that preexisted and is above the reach of government. To repeat an earlier post:

"After the colonists won independence, these inalienable rights were further codified in the Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (1789).

The Bill of Rights is one of the first translations of moral or philosophical rights into the national laws of a country. The protection of certain individual rights that had been argued by philosophers like Locke and proclaimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence were thus made part of US law when they were adopted in the Bill of Rights
."

Human Rights in the US & the International Community — Foundation: Unit II. What Are Human Rights and Where Do They Come From? — The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights

IF the Constitution is changed to impair unalienable Rights, then the citizenry has the AUTHORITY, DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO rebel and reclaim their Rights. To suggest that the founders / framers fought, bled and died to secure Liberties that could be pissed away by a popularity vote is the epitome of silliness.
 
Dec 2018
4,894
1,340
New England
Odd that the Constitution says nothing about "first principles" being beyond the scope of amendment.
 
Sep 2017
107
19
Houston TX
I have cited the entire Heller text many times.

What you've asked has been asked and answered many times and is not subject to your spin. Obviously you have a hard time with reading the opening posts, so lets' do civics 101:

1) America was founded on what are called First Principles

2) The reason for separating from King George came in the form of a document that the author, Thomas Jefferson said was the "declaratory charter of the Rights of man." You know this as the Declaration of Independence

3) The Constitution of the United States was ratified with the understanding that the Constitution could never be interpreted to deny to the citizenry those unalienable Rights that our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure

4) Among the foundational principles found in our declaratory charter and codified in the Bill of Rights is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment guarantees a Right that preexisted and is above the reach of government. To repeat an earlier post:

"After the colonists won independence, these inalienable rights were further codified in the Bill of Rights — the first ten amendments to the US Constitution (1789).

The Bill of Rights is one of the first translations of moral or philosophical rights into the national laws of a country. The protection of certain individual rights that had been argued by philosophers like Locke and proclaimed by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence were thus made part of US law when they were adopted in the Bill of Rights
."

Human Rights in the US & the International Community — Foundation: Unit II. What Are Human Rights and Where Do They Come From? — The American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights

IF the Constitution is changed to impair unalienable Rights, then the citizenry has the AUTHORITY, DUTY AND OBLIGATION TO rebel and reclaim their Rights. To suggest that the founders / framers fought, bled and died to secure Liberties that could be pissed away by a popularity vote is the epitome of silliness.

Even if this “First Principles” theory were constitutionally sound (a big question mark now unless you can answer NatMorton’s question about amending the amendments), a “first principle” would still not mean “unlimited”. For example, the right of self-defense is a “first principle” (is it not?). But it is also limited – the law requires that my response to a threat be proportional to the level of threat.
 

LTP

Mar 2018
1,901
377
Undisclosed Bunker
Odd that the Constitution says nothing about "first principles" being beyond the scope of amendment.
Then maybe you should get hooked up with civics 101. Everything about the Constitution is not IN the Constitution. No document can be as extensive as you demand. But, there is STILL an answer:

'...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

Principle 8Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

Those rights, then, which God and nature have established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any additional strength when declared by the municipal [or state] laws to be inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislation has power to abridge or destroy them, unless the owner [of the right] shall himself commit some act that amounts to a forfeiture.” – William Blackstone


The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.” — Massachusetts` U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788

It clearly was the intent to NOT allow the Constitution to be construed to interfere with unalienable Rights.

The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.” — Letter to F.R. Minoe, June 12, 1789

If things were as you claim, (and clearly they are not), a constitutional amendment could prohibit changing the government.

"This may be the most oft quoted passage of the Declaration of Independence. It’s heavily influenced by John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, which asserts that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and property. Thomas Jefferson, the lead writer and head of the five man committee assigned to write the document, borrowed extensively from George Mason’s Declaration of Rights for Virginia, which states men have “certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety”


"If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave. John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772


You will not find the separation of church and state, integration, segregation, or gambling by name, yet all of those have been litigated on in the United States Supreme Court because the high Court ruled on legal concepts related to Rights in each instance. So, you've been answered in full and your argument is still frivolous.
 

LTP

Mar 2018
1,901
377
Undisclosed Bunker
Even if this “First Principles” theory were constitutionally sound (a big question mark now unless you can answer NatMorton’s question about amending the amendments), a “first principle” would still not mean “unlimited”. For example, the right of self-defense is a “first principle” (is it not?). But it is also limited – the law requires that my response to a threat be proportional to the level of threat.
You guys and semantics. I answered the consummate troll. Still, if you bother to read this thread it is NOT a debate as to whether or not you anti-gunners have any point at all. So, whatever semantic double talk you want to interject is not relevant to this thread. Please excuse me if I don't join you in this "nothing is absolute" B.S. The earliest courts ruled that it is; legal cites have been provided in this thread. Liberty is a journey, not a destination.

When anyone tries to limit unalienable Rights, they are advocating sedition and treason.

Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.” Thomas Jefferson

No matter how you slice it, dice it, or cut it the founders / framers held unalienable Rights above man made laws.