Justice Breyer on the Second Amendment

And not just one gun, but one of a specific caliber and capable of mounting a bayonet. That is unless they were in the cavalry where they were to have a brace of pistols, and a saber (and provide the horse). Breyer would say that the 1792 militia Act was never enforced. But I have found the four amendments to it, all enacted years after the "Experts" say the act was abandoned.

In Heller Breyer acted as if the history was plain and supported his views. In McDonald he and Stevens started saying that Early American history was ambiguous. Now Breyer feels the historians should be siding with his interpretation of history. One wonders when they will start demanding the historians side with them.

Regarding his Heller dissent, Justice Breyer stated, "I think more of the historians were with us." The professional historians' amicus brief, from fifteen Ph.D. holding academics, was relied on by Justice Breyer for pivotal historical arguments in the case. The question is, were the opinions stated by the historians in their brief and relied upon in the dissent backed up by historical facts?

The answer no. The historians' brief was filled with documented errors of fact. Justice Breyer accepted the historians' views, and, as a result, the dissent was based upon historical error.

For details of the historians' mistakes, many of which the Heller dissenters were swayed by, check out the 24 part series, Root Causes of Never-Ending Second Amendment Dispute at ON SECOND OPINION BLOG (Part 1 posted Jan. 25, 2009).

For a more concise and general analysis of the historians' errors, see Why DC's Gun Law is Unconstitutional, published by History News Network, Feb. 18, 2008.

The ideological divide over Second Amendment intent exists because those supporting gun control, such as Justice Breyer, accept historical error as fact. They prefer to rely on the opinions of academics rather than the historical documents that directly contradict their views.

When I read it, I had trouble believing that the news report could be accurate. If it is then Breyer is seriousely screwed up. So much so, I doubt the reports accuracy.

If it was true that madison liked gun control but supported the 2nd because the states wanted it, then he is admitting that the 2nd restricted gun control. Would Breyer have the Court decide such a huge case as Heller based upon what Madison wanted but could not get?

There are several other logical problems with what Breyer is reported to have said. I would be surprised if the reported got any of it right.

Sorry Jim, I saw Breyer say it. There is a type of Judge and Lawyer that cannot stand the 2ed. They see it as a threat to what they do and what they stand for. If People have guns then the Lawyers and Judges are not the final word on the Law. They can't stand that. They don't trust the People and they believe that "What they say is the LAW is the LAW". If the People don't like it that is just to bad. They are Judges, their word IS LAW.

The Constitution says that is wrong but they can fix THAT. Values, What the Founder Intended, the words aren't important the Values are. And those Values have to be interpretted by Judges the People aren't smart enough. Only the Lawyers and Judges are trained and smart enough to do that.

I am sorry Jim. Breyer and those like him is WHY there is a 2ed.

It makes not a single bit of difference what the Framers or anyone else says. NO ONE can discern the intent of EVERYONE who voted to ratify the Constitution and that would be REQUIRED in order to determine the intent behind any amendment or even the Constitution. So, the only legitimate method of understanding the 2nd and other amendments is from the text.

BTW, The Militia act of 1792 was not constitutional. The Congress was granted authority to organize the Militia NOT to decide its membership. The English used in the Constitution is easy to understand when one is well versed in the grammar. The language says a the Militia exists, organize it, ALL members as recognized by common cultural/societal norms. It does not say decide membership.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
~~Thomas Jefferson

"Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties."
~~Abraham Lincoln

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
~~Abraham Lincoln

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence."
-George Washington.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
-Patrick Henry, during Virginia's ratification convention (1788).

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."
~~Abraham Lincoln

It seems pretty clear to me what the founders and the builders intended regarding the peoples right to "Keep and Bear Arms".

“Impeach "Justice" Breyer...nothing less will do.

Talking in circles about the Constitution and it's "Values..."...The Values are in the Words, and the meaning is clearly written. The right of the people, not the states, to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, infringed, tamperd with…and what they were allowed to keep and bear were the state of the art military weapons of the day, not squirrel guns or derringers.

Historians didn't write the Constitution...they just rewrite history to suit their own agendas, facts being inconvenient things...

Whether Madison just wanted to get it passed or not, the words that were approved are the words that are binding...unless formally amended...and not the wods as interpreted through such absurd mumbo-jumbo filters as Breyer is using. With so little logic, how did this idiot ever become a judge?”

Justice Breyer (from FOX News):

“Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland.”

Wow — a new legal principle:

“The prohibition of any right in a jurisdiction may be deemed Constitutional, provided that one may freely travel to another jurisdiction in which the exercise of that right is permitted.”

I think in the issue of Breyer v. U.S. Historical Record, we need to look at the precedent set by Bellisiles, "Fabricate for attribution."

'Historians' will start to pop out of the woodwork with subtle, false claims now that SCOTUS is willing to use them to generate precedence on the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, Justice Breyer conveniently forgets that one may only purchase a handgun in your state of residence, and any long gun purchases must comply with the laws of both the state in which you purchase the firearm AND in the purchaser's home state, in addition to the minor issue of Constitutional rights varying based on your location...

With a wave of his hand, Breyer erases history to support an unrestrained government.

The PA Constitutional Convention Dissent, among the first and most influential calls for a Bill of Rights, specifically demanded an enumerated right of the individual citizen to own and carry arms for the express purposes of individual protection, community protection, hunting of game, and for the common defense against invasion and tyrannical government.

Breyer is PRECISELY the kind of sophist statist the founders feared would subvert liberty.

That little fracas at Lexington Green was started because a man named John Hancock commissioned and privately purchased a pair of cannons, and then donated them to the town militia.

During the war of 1812, British flagged privateers discovered the hard way that New England Merchantmen had privately owned cannons aboard.

If we go by historical precedent, as Justice Breyer would have it, I should be able to privately purchase and own any full sized artillery piece I desire, without getting any kind of permission slip from any government organization.

I have no problem with this. I'd like some real and paperwork free ATGs to go with my Lahti.

Like to shoot skeet?

Just get on the subway... and...er...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3x0wFJBqnM&NR=1

Wow, this thread brought out the big GUNS.

Yes, they fear us as much as we fear them and have lied to us for decades about the Constitution. The top liars are the judges who can read between the lines, add words such as "reasonable" where the words are not, and use the crystal BALLS to decide the fate of the People.