California's New CC Ruling

[Kensal Rise]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

BINGO!

[King Brown]

This respectful and intelligent conversation, particularly its bearing on language, is interesting to me because of the 7-4 California court decision, almost two to one.

As for checks and balances, isn't the current voluminous dissent in both parties because they've worked negatively in the public interest (and have no bearing on language)?

I come here for information and it's pleasing---and a tribute to the board---to see opinions more from a community than partisan politics.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

BINGO!

And this is where I really can't follow the logic as taking up arms (levying war) against the US government is defined in th constitution as treason.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights effectively replaces the bullet with the ballot when it comes to how our country is governed. Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

[todd allen]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

You are so right. All the courts of appeal, all the judges that have different interpretations are wrong. They know nothing. Case closed.

Judges are human, and make mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott come to mind.

[todd allen]

Originally Posted by Daniel Carter

I have read in the dim past that in the usage of the day that well regulated referred to well equipped or\and well trained. I do not think the authors had any intention of restrictions.

You are correct. I think the anti-gun lobby would re-order the entire English language to change the meaning of the 2nd A.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by todd allen

Judges are human, and make mistakes. Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott come to mind.

In 200+ years of American jurisprudence you will not find one opinion or dissent supporting the literal interpretation of the 2nd A. Pretty hard to argue that mistakes have been made when there is zero case law to support a position.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

So is at least part of the argument for the literal interpretation of the 2nd A that citizens should always have access to firearms in case our own government becomes oppressive?

Stated simply - Yes!

And let us all remember that the right to protect ourselves is NOT granted by a government, but is a God-given right that no person nor entity can take from us.... Ever! And in order for 'the People' to protect themselves they must be as well armed as those who wish to oppress them.






.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Jay Gardner

Our leaders are elected by the people and there is simply no constitutional provision that provides for armed insurrection by those who don't like the outcomes.

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.







.

[Setter Man]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

Excluding the words "who don't like the outcomes" and replacing those with such wording as 'when we no longer have a representative form of government', or 'if the government becomes a single party system and becomes oppressive to those who are in disagreement with its policies and edicts to the point that their rights are ignored.' Then yes, I believe there is - it's known as the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Constitution and most of the Bill of Rights were not written by a government, but were written by wise and thoughtful men who had been oppressed and tyrannized.

One can not be a literalist and start speculating on what the authors meant when they wrote what they wrote. If you believe the 2nd A is clear and should be construed literally then you must also construe literally Article 3 that provides taking up arms against the government of the US to be treason.

They had been oppressed by a foreign government (England) and they formed a government that gave its citizens a method to govern by and through the people. Oppressive is subjective and relative term, regardless, there are checks and balances in place. At what point do those who feel that the government is oppressing them has the "god given right" (which does not exist) to take up arms against that has been elected by a majority of the country? There is no footnote; no unless; no but if.... The founders made it clear: we are a republic led by people chosen by the people, no matter what those people believe. That is the ONLY way a country can evolve. If they did not truly believe in the evolution of society and its government then they never would have made provisions for amending the constitution. Sorry, there is no legitimate way for our government to function as the founders envisioned that is consistent with legitimate armed insurrection. On that point, the constitution is very clear. They are, by definition, mutually exclusive.

[John Truitt]

Well said Mr Romig.

You could not have said it any better.