Justice Sotomayor car jacking
- Thread starter ihhawk
- Start date
We have countless laws that already make that unlawful. How's that working out?
It's not hypocritical. She was basically saying that the 2nd amendment wasn't for armed citizens. The "bodyguards" were US Marshals. Not citizens but police forces.
I'm not saying I completely agree with her for that matter, but it's not hypocritical. She's a SCOTUS justice and she receives protection from the US Marshals who are a law enforcement agency, not "armed citizens"
Because of several loopholes that make it easy for criminals to get the guns despite the law. The first and most obvious would be private sales which take place without a background check.
To me I would think placing a background check on private sales should be low hanging fruit that everyone could agree on. But no we can't even get the right to agree to that. So if you are a criminal and you need a gun. . . all you have to do is find someone who already has one to buy it from. Even the most law abiding individual can't look at you and decide if you are a criminal or not.
Her position is basically this: I don’t care if you’re a single mom with an abusive ex, living in a crappy neighborhood in a violent city - the 2nd Amendment does NOT guarantee you a right to arm yourself in the interest of self defense. However, I will be happy to use your tax dollars to pay for MY self defense…around the freaking clock. Suck it, plebe.
The very epitome of a hypocrite (and a shit legal mind, to boot).
The first part you are right about. That is essentially her position.
The second part I think you are framing in the worst possible way.
Look at it this way. The ruling came out opposite of her views upon the 2nd amendment. That was a dissent. So the current law is that people have the right to firearms for self defense purposes. . .
I have guns in my home. But I would argue that having 2 armed US Marshals guarding my home would be far far better defense than my own personal firearms. I would argue having a small army of secret service agents would be an even better defense than 2 US Marshals and not even in the same ballpark as having my own guns.
That said I don't feel gyped out because I don't get special protection that a SCOTUS justice receives. She receives special protection due to her position.
No we don't,.. most community police forces are seriously understaffed right now.
Very apt that you would reference a decision that prevented African Americans from gaining citizenship and was subsequently overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments. You've never been good at context or, for that matter, representing facts accurately.
If she was a conservative the left would say that the right cares more about cars than a human life.
“She receives special protection due to her position”. And therein lies the hypocrisy.
Rules for thee but not for me.
But ruling the opposite way isn't giving me any special protection. Only thing it gives me is access to a firearm which may help if I need to defend myself. But it's not giving me a cop guarding my house.
Great! And as soon as a couple judges are switched out your rights - and mine - will be cancelled and we will no longer be ‘allowed’ to defend ourselves.
But the elitists in their black robes will still have their rights and their ‘round the clock armed protection.
Effing hypocrites.
Countless?
no. We have weak gun laws and weak (non-existent) tracking of who owns them.
Yup
You own a car, you register that car and license it, annually.
We should be doing the same w/ guns, and if you get one that is not registered/licensed, you get to go to jail for 2-5 yrs and lose your ownership rights in perpetuity. Do it twice and stay in jail for the rest of your existence.
Countries w/ strong regulation on guns do not have these problems.
Most community police forces don't community police.
They spend the annual salaries of 3-4 cops on military-like vehicles that are never, ever used except for parades.
Actually, they've called to reform the police. The folks who rant about "defunding" are a startlingly small minority.
She’s ignorant. That doesn’t make her right just because she makes the ignorance public.
It was always recognized as a right of the people.
What are the laws in DC regarding the use of deadly force in protecting property? I mean, it OBVIOUSLY wouldn’t apply to our overlords, but still…hypocrisy.
Two teenagers have been arrested for breaking into a Secret Service car assigned to US President Joe Biden's granddaughter late last year.
An agent tasked with protecting Naomi Biden fired his weapon at the thieves during the incident in Washington DC's wealthy Georgetown area.
Secret Service agents had spotted three people breaking the window of the unoccupied government vehicle.
One of the agents at the scene fired his weapon, but is not believed to have struck any of the suspects.
www.bbc.com
Two teenagers have been arrested for breaking into a Secret Service car assigned to US President Joe Biden's granddaughter late last year.
An agent tasked with protecting Naomi Biden fired his weapon at the thieves during the incident in Washington DC's wealthy Georgetown area.
Secret Service agents had spotted three people breaking the window of the unoccupied government vehicle.
One of the agents at the scene fired his weapon, but is not believed to have struck any of the suspects.
Teens arrested over Biden granddaughter car break-in - BBC News
An agent tasked with protecting Naomi Biden fired his weapon during the incident in Washington DC.
www.bbc.com
True. In the context of the people forming a well regulated militia. Not self defense.
That argument is destroyed by the Supreme Court observing that right of the people was like the other rights of the people:
‘persons…, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.’
If your legal theory were correct (gun ownership is tied solely to militia service) Taney would have nothing to fear with regard to former slaves being armed if they could only do so under the stipulations of the Congress or legislature. But he observed no such limitation. You can’t find it in the writings of the Founders a few decades prior either. It’s a whole cloth invention that requires ignorance of the history of the revolution and the Bill of Rights.
I don't have a legal theory. I'm saying Justice Sotomayor was correct that the framers didn't create 2a for the purpose of self defense. I'm not arguing that individuals don't have the right to keep and hold arms. We do. But that right isn't based on a need for self defense.
Wrong, unless and until every American citizen gets their own armed guards to protect us and our families like Sotomayor has, then private citizens should be allowed to carry a gun so we have the same protection as government officials.
I’m confused. Are you genuinely using the Dred Scott decision as positive reinforcement for your position?
Ya because when you need a gun for that moment the police are right there like the Judges private armed police force. You special
I’m sure the criminal was a legal gun owner and followed guns laws by the book. Solid point above it makes so much sense
No, most police departments are currently understaffed because they can't find interested and qualified applicants...
Do you have an earlier Supreme Court reference to the personal exercise of rights protected by the BoR?
Hopefully this event will make an impression on the good Justice, and she will come to understand what a privilege it is to have 2 armed US Marshals around her all the time.
For those who don't understand the 2A, I recommend doing a little research on what the framers meant when they put in the militia preamble.
For those who don't understand the 2A, I recommend doing a little research on what the framers meant when they put in the militia preamble.
I'm saying Dred Scott was probably the most despicable ruling, with the most egregiously faulty reasoning, in our nation's history. So not exactly a "go to" case when searching for precedence to support your argument.
I think you might want to do the same. I’ve tried to look into the subject and find very little definitive regarding the mindset of the founders when it was passed, and very few SCOTUS cases on the subject. To the extent that I can find scholarly works or case history they generally seem to suggest that the right belonging to individuals for private use is a somewhat recent notion.
You aren't trying. There's a very large amount of material. Try googling framers + meaning of militia.
It should be inferred, even by a dullard, that if the constitution guarantees a right to life…and it does (Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) then it also guarantees the means to preserve one’s life (ergo; guns).
First Google entry:
At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states. "[When the Constitution was drafted], the militia was a state-based institution," says Rakove. "States were responsible for organizing this."
That aside. I would bet I have tried harder, and with more honesty, than you. I’ve looked for words spoken and written by Madison and others on the matter, and the answer is not definitive but leans towards a right of “the people” collectively to bear arms (as part of a well regulated militia) as opposed to a right for individuals. Which is why the 21st Century SCOTUS decision is the first time the court has said it is a right of the individual.
If you are convinced this is definitively the intent of the second amendment then I don’t believe you have done an honest investigation into the subject. The answer, either way, is not all together clear. And its meaning has seldom been addressed by SCOTUS.
