Samuel Alito for US Supreme Court -- Yes or No

[TheScout 10]

Hunt,

 

That is a very faulty line of reasoning. The Constitution was written to protect the rights of citizens to own their own arms; pistols, rifles, and muskets. I do not beleive the framers of the Constituion wrote it to protect the right of an individual to own their own cannon, or frigate, or first rate ship, the WMDs of their day.

[Trevorum 24]

An interesting idea, but I think I agree with TheScout on this one. We'd have to consult a military historian or perhaps a philologist to discover what the word "arms" meant to late 18th century landowners, but I suspect it meant something akin to "personal weapons" - muskets and flintlocks and the like. I suspect that cannons, mortars and other siege weapons were collectively referred to using a different word, not "arms". Thus, in my opinion, outlawing personal posession of flame-thowers, RPG, etc. is not unconstitutional.

[SR540Beaver 116]

We really need to nail down the definition of "arms" before I purchase the enriched uranium I need to complete that baby nuke I'm building down in the basement.

[Kahuna 172]

"I do not beleive the framers of the Constitution wrote it to protect the right of an individual to own their own cannon, or frigate, or first rate ship, the WMDs of their day."

 

I am not so sure. There were plenty of letters of marque issued out to private ship owners during the Revolution and the War of 1812. These were private people who fitted out and armed their ships and were permitted to attack, capture and burn enemy vessels. Those who didn't have a letter of marque were permitted to arm their ships, but if they used them offensively they were considered pirates.

 

Personally, I've always wanted an Iowa-class battleship. I keep watching e-bay, but haven't seen one.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

Even if we accept your idea that the Second Amendment grants the individual the right to bear "personal" weapons, a modern court will still have to determine where to draw the line. Military-style automatic weapons are the descendants of those muskets--does everybody have the Constitutional right to own one? And what's the difference between that and a shoulder-mounted RPG? What makes it "personal?"

 

I guess my point is that if a case on this topic comes before the Supreme Court, there is really no way to avoid the losing side thinking that the Court has made an "activist" decision. If the Court says that the Amendment gives everybody the right to bear an Uzi, the losers will say that the court stretched the clear meaning of the language, and if the Court rules to the contrary, the losers will argue that the Court refused to give credence to the "clear meaning" of arms. Even the most extreme originalist is going to have to figure out how to apply language written in the 19th century to 21st century facts, and that is going to require interpretation and extrapolation, which will always look like activism to the losers.

[TheScout 10]

Kahuna, Your argument is extremly poor. No shipowner had a right to a letter of marque. It was a privlege, definatly not a right like that to bear arms.

[SR540Beaver 116]

Hunt,

 

Well said. I listen to a good amount of talk radio. I recall when many of the conservative pundits were up in arms over Miers nomination to the court. I heard the same sentiment made by a number of pundits, but specifically recall Ann Coulter making a remark to Sean Hannity on his radio show. She basically said that conservatives had worked at the grassroots level for 30 years to get to this day where a conservative president could put people on the SCOTUS. They didn't want to see it sqaundered. They wanted to see the president put a person on the court who will "rule in line with our values". On one hand, she called for a strict constructionist, on the other hand she called for someone who will rule based on a certain ideology. Hasn't that been the complaint about activist judges legislating from the bench? I just want someone who will be fair.

[TheScout 10]

I am a conservative. I believe that strict construction is the conservative judical philosophy.

[BrentAllen 10]

"Ruling in line with our values" requires a strict constructionist view - they are one in the same (for conservatives). This actually requires NO judicial activism.

 

The only ruling from the SCOTUS on guns was back in the 1930's, regarding a sawed-off shotgun (less than 18"). Pay special attention to the SCOTUS definition of "militia" and weapons "of the kind in common use at the time."

In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''5 The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.''6 Therefore, ''n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well- regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.''7

 

Looks like the SCOTUS has already decided the issue on militias and arms.

[Kahuna 172]

TheScout: My remark was somewhat tongue in cheek as indicated by the final line. Still, it was not, in those days, considered a privilege to arm yourself with cannon if you had the means and the desire. Letters of marque were definitely a privilege.

 

As to previous decisions of the SCOTUS: decisions can be wrong as well as right. Sometimes the Court will reverse itself decades later.

[Torveaux 10]

I will consider myself consulted....

 

While letters of marque were not given to just anyone, the ability to own or possess a ship of war or a cannon or the 'top of the line' military weapons was not restricted for many years after (1934) the founding of the country. Like all other gun laws, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 did nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, it merely made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens. The founders did not outlaw ownership or possession, they outlawed activities, such as piracy and enforced those laws with what would now be considered cruel and unusual punishments.

 

TheScout is quite correct in one sense, a big portion of the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment was in response to the oppression of the governments of the day.

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

Well, I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that "Like all other gun laws, the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 did nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, it merely made criminals out of otherwise law-abiding citizens.", Torveaux.

 

I'm of the opinion that some common sense limitations on gun ownership and use are acceptable in order to provide for the overall safety of the citizenry. Whether a person thinks that the Constitution allows a right for weapons ownership or not, it should just be common sense that you have to take into account the safety of the citizenry. Maybe the right to bear arms need to be broken into two pieces, gun ownership and gun use. I don't care if a person has 20 guns of all kinds, as long as they can't fire them. Collectors, I suppose. Once a person starts to USE firearms, tho, I think it makes sense to require some sort of licensing based on a knowledge of gun use and safety, or if not licensing, just some sort of proof of training required to make a gun purchase.

 

There's a cost that goes along with having an armed citizenry. I choose not to be armed, primarily because I have children and think the risk of accident FAR ourweighs the protective advantages, and so I don't think I should be required to contribute to that cost. And yet, part of the national health care cost consists of health care required to repair the damage done by weapons, whether intentionally or not. We all end up paying for that. I'm sure that there are other indirect costs as well that contribute to the overall cost of having guns freely available.

 

What about that "militia" thing the Constitution talks about? Do all the gun owners belong to this militia, and who's paying for that?

[BrentAllen 10]

I think the text is pretty clear - all able-bodied persons in the state are the militia. That includes you, assuming you are able-bodied. Nobody gets paid, the citizens are expected to show up ready to defend their state, if needed. Why would you get paid to defend your home?

Sure, let' set licensing and testing before you can use your firearms. And when we get an anti-gun government in power, that makes the testing so impossible that no one can pass it, then what do we do? Sounds like a poll tax to me, and the constitutionality of those has long since been determined.

The TSA was given the charge of training and testing pilots who wanted to carry weapons aboard commercial jets. The TSA never wanted to arm the pilots, so they have been foot-dragging the whole way. If congress wasn't strongly in favor of the arming plan, it never would have happened. Imagine a government that doesn't want the citizens to be armed. They could make the process so impossible that it would, in effect, be a gun ban. The SCOTUS has said you can't do that.

Pilots Push for Gun Training

 

Monday, March 14, 2005

 

WASHINGTON While the pace of training and deployment of armed pilots on commercial flights has picked up, supporters of the program say the Bush administration still is making it unnecessarily difficult for crews to take guns into the cockpit.

 

Pilots who monitor the program estimate that between 4,000 and 4,500 have been trained and deputized to carry guns since the Federal Flight Deck Officer program (search) began in April 2003. That total is about three times as many as a year ago, yet a fraction of the 95,000 pilots who fly for U.S. airlines.

 

David Mackett, president of the Airline Pilots Security Alliance (search), a group formed to lobby for guns in the cockpit, said tens of thousands of his colleagues are interested in the program.

 

"We have an armed pilots program that's arming very few pilots," said Mackett, who hasn't signed up because of the way the program is run. He said many others won't join for the same reason.

 

Mackett contends the Transportation Security Administration (search) isn't moving to get substantially more pilots trained to carry guns because it has never really wanted the program.

 

TSA spokesman Mark Hatfield disputed that, saying agency chief David Stone fully backs the effort and that procedures have been changed to more quickly get pilots into the program.

 

"I've got a pipeline with a couple of thousand applicants and we're running two full classes a week," Hatfield said. The TSA can train about 50 pilots per class.

 

Hatfield said he couldn't disclose which procedures had been adjusted because of the program's sensitive security nature.

 

The exact number of armed pilots is classified. No pilot has fired a weapon, either intentionally or accidentally, while on duty, according to TSA spokeswoman Andrea McCauley.

 

The TSA initially opposed the program, worrying that introducing a weapon to a commercial flight was dangerous and that other security enhancements since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks made it unnecessary. The agency reluctantly endorsed the idea when it was clear Congress was behind it.

 

The Bush administration now wants to spend $7 million more on arming pilots in 2006 than the $25.3 million this year. The increase will mostly go toward retraining pilots who already carry firearms, according to a TSA spokeswoman, Amy von Walter.

 

Pilots must volunteer, take a psychological test and complete a weeklong firearms training program run by the government to keep a gun in the cockpit. Mackett said it can take from two months to a year to get a gun from the time an online application is submitted. Some pilots never even hear back from the TSA, he said.

 

Mackett said the psychological testing and background checks are unnecessary because pilots already have been carefully vetted by their airlines to be able to fly commercial jets.

 

Hatfield countered that the requirements are needed because of the unique stresses of defending a plane from terrorists while trying to fly it.

 

"All of the testing, including the psych portion, is designed to ensure we have the most capable candidates for this extremely demanding job," he said.

 

"Unlike other law enforcement jobs, it's not just about making a life-or-death decision and waiting for backup. It's about making that decision and then turning around and flying the plane again."

 

Another pilots' group, the Coalition of Airline Pilots Associations (search), gave the TSA a "D" for the guns-in-the-cockpit program as part of its annual "Aviation Security Report Card."

 

Both pilot groups object to the requirement that pilots carry their government-issue semiautomatic guns in a lockbox when they're not in the cockpit and to store it in the cargo hold when they're traveling but not flying a plane.

 

Coalition president Jon Safle said that forcing pilots to give up their guns is "just not a smart thing to do" and that it exposes the weapons to loss or theft.

 

Last year, Congress failed to pass a bill that would speed the application and training process, allow pilots to carry guns in holsters and let those among them with military or law enforcement backgrounds carry guns immediately.

 

Mackett said the pilots will try again this year.

 

 

[Hunt 11]

"And when we get an anti-gun government in power, that makes the testing so impossible that no one can pass it, then what do we do?"

 

I find it interesting that conservatives are always talking about the rights of the majority when Constitutional interpretations limit something they want to do (like have school prayer), but they aren't quite so majoritarian when the majority disagrees with them.

[Kahuna 172]

With all due respect, P_S, I have never seen a gun law that took guns out of the hands of criminals. I can certainly understand how you or anyone would be concerned that I, a gun owner, know what I am doing if I'm carrying it around with me, but I think all right-to-carry states have such requirements. A gun in my home doesn't threaten others if stored properly. Licensing, in this day and age, like registration, is simply a way to intimidate and restrict the ownership of guns. Registration also gives you a handy list of gun owners you can go to to round up guns and serves no other purpose that I can see.

 

I also fail to see how a so-called "assault weapon" including a tommy gun would threaten anyone else. Bad guys will always be able to find them. Good guys know how to use them and where. I don't think I've heard of a gun collector going on a rampage with a .50 caliber in a shopping mall. Yes, they can be stolen, but again they are out there for the bad guys anyway.