I read in today’s paper that Judge Laurence Silberman said in regard to the District of Columbia's position in Parker v. District of Columbia: "Show me anybody in the 19th century who interprets the Second Amendment the way you do, It doesn't appear until much later, the middle of the 20th century."
The Judge would not have made this statement if he read the precedents cited in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), In particular, Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840).
I bring your attention to this quote from the above case:
"To make this view of the case still more clear, we may remark
that the phrase, "bear arms," is used in the Kentucky constitution
as well as in our own, and implies, as has already been suggested,
their military use. The 28th section of our bill of rights provides
"that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms
provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here
we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other;
and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section,
which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the
pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day
for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had
borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears
arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes,
or a spear in a cane. So that, with deference, we think the
argument of the court in the case referred to, even upon the
question it has debated, is defective and inconclusive."
Given this case was written in December 1840, the view that bearing arms applied to military service was indeed held prior to the 20th Century.
In fact, saying that firearms were commonplace items is ridiculous given the technology of the 18th Century. Interchangeable parts were not common and neither was mass production of firearms.
This is roughly the equivalent of saying that the average person could afford a Purdey or Holland and Holland shotgun.
Of course, there are those who believe "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" means we have a right to a Playboy playmate, Penthouse Pet, or, in my case, Bark Pet for a partner, a six figure income and a Lambourghini Countach.
I hope the Judge considers that what is called the “collectivist” interpretation was used in 1840 rather commonly when he issues his opinion on this case.
Additionally, he may wish to do some research regarding this matter as he will find the military interpretation of bearing arms was indeed very commonplace usage during this period.
A read of Saul Cornell’s A Well-Regulated Militia: The Founding Fathers and the Origins of Gun Control in America would be well worth it.
Any further comment about the Judge's statement would be a crime called Murmuring Judges in Scotland.
Dumb just means I can't talk!
09 December 2006
10 October 2006
Laci for President!
America is indeed the land of opportunity, where else could a complete moron become head of a nation? Although, it has been said that a nation gets the government it deserves. Woe upon the United States in that case!
That's worse than being Al-Queda's number one target!
I have to admit that I am far more intelligent than the president of the United States.
In fact the United States should be honoured to have me as its leader. I will declare war upon Great Britain for its quarantine policy and idiocy of banning squirrel chasing.
That makes far more sense to me than invading Iraq.
I belive we should set up a nuclear watch dog agency to keep an eye on Korea: this will be headed by Brutus the Rottweiler. He would do a very good job of keeping the North Koreans in line!
There would be no welfare because I would make welfare mothers into dog walkers.
Mike the Mastiff would ensure that the religious right stay away from family planning clincs.
VOTE FOR LACI!
That's worse than being Al-Queda's number one target!
I have to admit that I am far more intelligent than the president of the United States.
In fact the United States should be honoured to have me as its leader. I will declare war upon Great Britain for its quarantine policy and idiocy of banning squirrel chasing.
That makes far more sense to me than invading Iraq.
I belive we should set up a nuclear watch dog agency to keep an eye on Korea: this will be headed by Brutus the Rottweiler. He would do a very good job of keeping the North Koreans in line!
There would be no welfare because I would make welfare mothers into dog walkers.
Mike the Mastiff would ensure that the religious right stay away from family planning clincs.
VOTE FOR LACI!
02 October 2006
One Dog's Politics
I am getting messages calling me a "liberal Dog", "Conservative Dog", or just "you dumb dog"
Frederick the Great said "The more I see of men, the better I like my dog." Why? because we are loyal and dedicated and not to likely to be taken in by BS.
Fools who argue certain points, such as the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be carte blanche, for citizens to own firearms will say stupid things (for example, that), then insult people who speak sense and know what they are talking about.
They won't, however, argue with a dog: especially one who can out debate them.
Ha!
Frederick the Great said "The more I see of men, the better I like my dog." Why? because we are loyal and dedicated and not to likely to be taken in by BS.
Fools who argue certain points, such as the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to be carte blanche, for citizens to own firearms will say stupid things (for example, that), then insult people who speak sense and know what they are talking about.
They won't, however, argue with a dog: especially one who can out debate them.
Ha!
28 September 2006
Support for the Dogs of Britain...and humans who like to hunt as well
Master of Hounds
Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt
London
England
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a Chinese Crested Powderpuff who enjoys the hunt of Squirrels (see attached picture) and who is descended from British Champion Chinese Cresteds. While I am quite proud of my British heritage, I have to admit that this ridiculous law makes me quite happy to live in the land of the Free and home of the Rebellion which separated our two great countries.
The activities of your organisation came to my attention through an Article in the Telegraph which stated that:
'The Hunting Act prohibits one from encouraging a dog to chase a squirrel. More than that, it is frightening that one's dog could be put down and one could be fined £5,000 for saying Go on Rover, get after it!.'
I am assuming that this absurdity comes from having a Labour government run by Tony the Weasel.
In fact, I am truly of the opinion that banning the act of hunting squirrels by dogs would be among the acts which were enumerated by the dissatisfied colonists had George III been mad enough to ban squirrel hunting. It would have made the top of the list and even stirred the heart of the most ardent Tory to the cause of independence from a mad British government as it has stirred Michael's and Mine.
If it were not for the other absurd law regarding quarantine, I would love to join you and your organisation in a hunt when my human companion travels to Britain to visit his mother. Alas, I am only able to give you my whole hearted support in your cause and will think of you as I enjoy the liberty granted by the Declaration of Independence.
This liberty is so strong that I can hunt Squirrels in Independence National Historical Park while my human companion is barred from exercising his right to carry a concealed handgun as enshrined in the Second Amendment!
The right for dogs to hunt squirrels is truly a God given right which no man shall infringe!
I remain yours truly,
Ms. Laci Boots
Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt
London
England
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am a Chinese Crested Powderpuff who enjoys the hunt of Squirrels (see attached picture) and who is descended from British Champion Chinese Cresteds. While I am quite proud of my British heritage, I have to admit that this ridiculous law makes me quite happy to live in the land of the Free and home of the Rebellion which separated our two great countries.
The activities of your organisation came to my attention through an Article in the Telegraph which stated that:
'The Hunting Act prohibits one from encouraging a dog to chase a squirrel. More than that, it is frightening that one's dog could be put down and one could be fined £5,000 for saying Go on Rover, get after it!.'
I am assuming that this absurdity comes from having a Labour government run by Tony the Weasel.
In fact, I am truly of the opinion that banning the act of hunting squirrels by dogs would be among the acts which were enumerated by the dissatisfied colonists had George III been mad enough to ban squirrel hunting. It would have made the top of the list and even stirred the heart of the most ardent Tory to the cause of independence from a mad British government as it has stirred Michael's and Mine.
If it were not for the other absurd law regarding quarantine, I would love to join you and your organisation in a hunt when my human companion travels to Britain to visit his mother. Alas, I am only able to give you my whole hearted support in your cause and will think of you as I enjoy the liberty granted by the Declaration of Independence.
This liberty is so strong that I can hunt Squirrels in Independence National Historical Park while my human companion is barred from exercising his right to carry a concealed handgun as enshrined in the Second Amendment!
The right for dogs to hunt squirrels is truly a God given right which no man shall infringe!
I remain yours truly,
Ms. Laci Boots
01 August 2006
Jury nullification
There is an interesting movement out there called "jury nullification", which is where the jurors refuse to convict a person even if the facts and the law show that he is guilty. Perhaps the best example of this is the O.J. Simpson case where the jury felt that O.J. was wrongly being prosecuted. O.J. got away with murder despite the evidence, and unfortunately confessions which were never entered into evidence (e.g., at least the one to Rosie Greer, subsequently one to Christie Prody). It's O.K., O.J., you can admit now since they can't get you.
It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. Sparf v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 273, 282 (1895). In other words, the Jury is the trier of fact and it is the Judge who is the trier of law. The Jury is not supposed to use its own opinion of whether the law is fair or not, but whether the facts in the case are such that the law applies.
There are many problems with the concept of jury nullification, although it is a concept much favoured by the defence bar. One of which is that it turns legal certainty into a crap shoot. Jurors who will nullify are also likely to be ones who would convict based upon their capricious attitude. Additionally, I have noticed that most of the folks who like "jury nullification" also dislike "activist judges". What is the difference between these two concepts? Isn't one who would base his decision as a juror upon his like or dislike of something which is not related to the case just as bad as an activist judge? Isn’t an activist judge only one who interprets the law in a way that those who use that label dislike?
Another problem with jury nullification is that the jury system could be changed if there are too many hung juries. England already allows for non-unanimous juries, that is where a majority will find the defendant guilty.
Can't happen here? In 1972 the Supreme Court permitted non-unanimous juries for criminal cases in state courts, in approving 10-2 verdicts in Oregon courts and 9-3 verdicts in Louisiana. Abramson correctly argues that this bodes ill for the jury. "In Johnson v. Louisiana...Johnson argued that Louisiana's acceptance of a 9-3 jury verdict in his case violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt. By definition, no jury could reasonably find a defendant's guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he argued, when some of its members continued to harbor doubts." In Apodaca v. Oregon, the defendants argued that "unanimity was essential to enforcement of their Sixth Amendment right to be tried before cross-sectional juries. Only the unanimous verdict rule could guarantee effective representation to minority views; anything less empowered majorities simply to outvote minorities." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against both arguments by a narrow 5 to 4 decision.
I often wonder if those who favour jury nullification aren’t working toward the tyranny and despotism they so much decry. The problem is that there is supposed to be some form of consistency and predictability to justice, not the arbitrary chance that a jury will acquit (or convict) based upon its whims.
The forum for fighting unjust laws is the legislature, not the courts. I feel sorry for those who cannot understand that the courts only interpret and apply laws, not make them.
It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury as to the law, and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law, as it is laid down by the court. Sparf v. United States, 15 S.Ct. 273, 282 (1895). In other words, the Jury is the trier of fact and it is the Judge who is the trier of law. The Jury is not supposed to use its own opinion of whether the law is fair or not, but whether the facts in the case are such that the law applies.
There are many problems with the concept of jury nullification, although it is a concept much favoured by the defence bar. One of which is that it turns legal certainty into a crap shoot. Jurors who will nullify are also likely to be ones who would convict based upon their capricious attitude. Additionally, I have noticed that most of the folks who like "jury nullification" also dislike "activist judges". What is the difference between these two concepts? Isn't one who would base his decision as a juror upon his like or dislike of something which is not related to the case just as bad as an activist judge? Isn’t an activist judge only one who interprets the law in a way that those who use that label dislike?
Another problem with jury nullification is that the jury system could be changed if there are too many hung juries. England already allows for non-unanimous juries, that is where a majority will find the defendant guilty.
Can't happen here? In 1972 the Supreme Court permitted non-unanimous juries for criminal cases in state courts, in approving 10-2 verdicts in Oregon courts and 9-3 verdicts in Louisiana. Abramson correctly argues that this bodes ill for the jury. "In Johnson v. Louisiana...Johnson argued that Louisiana's acceptance of a 9-3 jury verdict in his case violated his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to have his guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt. By definition, no jury could reasonably find a defendant's guilt proved beyond a reasonable doubt, he argued, when some of its members continued to harbor doubts." In Apodaca v. Oregon, the defendants argued that "unanimity was essential to enforcement of their Sixth Amendment right to be tried before cross-sectional juries. Only the unanimous verdict rule could guarantee effective representation to minority views; anything less empowered majorities simply to outvote minorities." Unfortunately, the Supreme Court ruled against both arguments by a narrow 5 to 4 decision.
I often wonder if those who favour jury nullification aren’t working toward the tyranny and despotism they so much decry. The problem is that there is supposed to be some form of consistency and predictability to justice, not the arbitrary chance that a jury will acquit (or convict) based upon its whims.
The forum for fighting unjust laws is the legislature, not the courts. I feel sorry for those who cannot understand that the courts only interpret and apply laws, not make them.
Sure I am a dumb animal.
It is my opinion that the concept of the Second Amendment has been taken out of context and has gone far from what the Founding Fathers originally intended, which I believe was a military system like that of Switzerland where there is a small regular army (professional soldiers) and the universal militia (citizen soldiers, amateur soldiers, part time soldiers, etc.). Proof for this is in the debates and the text of the Constitution where the Federal government has its army and the states the militia. Additionally, there was a great deal of discussion of the evils of a standing army during the debates. Unfortunately, this has been lost in most of the current debates, or the Second Amendment would truly be embarrassing. How many people wish to argue that a Swiss style militia should replace the system we have now of a large standing military?
So, I am an extreme collective rights dog in that I believe there is nothing in the Second Amendment which precludes the banning of individual firearms if the ownership has no basis to an actual Swiss style system. Even in a Swiss style system, private firearms ownership could be strictly regulated if there is no legitimate connection to militia service.
The historical arguments are smoke screens as most people did not own firearms. I think that Michael Bellesisles made some good points in his book which are backed up by Historical facts. The basic one of these being that firearms were luxuries in the preindustrial revolution times (that is standard precision parts). Additionally, there are many instances where firearms at the time of the revolution were non-existent and people trained with sticks.
For the most part, people who lived on the frontier lived peaceful farming existences and didn't really need guns. Well, Didn't they hunt for food as people have done through the ages? That's rubbish. Hunting was the right of the nobility, not the common person. The Commoner has always relied on farming to supply food. In fact, there is a difference between hunting and farming societies in that hunters are nomads and farmers are settled. But the average American has this myth of the rugged, individualist frontiersman which couldn't be further from the truth. Most of them would have starved to death had that have been the truth.
As for armed self-defence explain away the Deerfield Massacre (1704) , The Chenoweth Massacre (1789), The 1752 Raid on Pickawillany, just to name a few. The farming settlers were pretty much unarmed. Even Daniel Shays who was a Revolutionary War vet had to raid the arsenal at Springfield to arm his band during his ill-fated rebellion.
So, I don't really care for this "recent scholarship". As any good lawyer knows, stare decisis keeps the collective rights as the "correct" version of the doctrine relating to the Second Amendment, which means I am right and you are wrong. Any "new" or "recent" scholarship is so much bumpf and, as such only, good for picking up my poop from the street. Short of a good policy reason leading to implementation of an individual rights theory becoming the legal doctrine, it is as valid as a geocentric theory of the universe--which of course was once commonly accepted by experts.
One Jurist on my side is Sam Alito!
So keep pushing NRA and other RKBA Morons (you don't even understand what that really means), I am betting on you to bring about the gun ban.
So, I am an extreme collective rights dog in that I believe there is nothing in the Second Amendment which precludes the banning of individual firearms if the ownership has no basis to an actual Swiss style system. Even in a Swiss style system, private firearms ownership could be strictly regulated if there is no legitimate connection to militia service.
The historical arguments are smoke screens as most people did not own firearms. I think that Michael Bellesisles made some good points in his book which are backed up by Historical facts. The basic one of these being that firearms were luxuries in the preindustrial revolution times (that is standard precision parts). Additionally, there are many instances where firearms at the time of the revolution were non-existent and people trained with sticks.
For the most part, people who lived on the frontier lived peaceful farming existences and didn't really need guns. Well, Didn't they hunt for food as people have done through the ages? That's rubbish. Hunting was the right of the nobility, not the common person. The Commoner has always relied on farming to supply food. In fact, there is a difference between hunting and farming societies in that hunters are nomads and farmers are settled. But the average American has this myth of the rugged, individualist frontiersman which couldn't be further from the truth. Most of them would have starved to death had that have been the truth.
As for armed self-defence explain away the Deerfield Massacre (1704) , The Chenoweth Massacre (1789), The 1752 Raid on Pickawillany, just to name a few. The farming settlers were pretty much unarmed. Even Daniel Shays who was a Revolutionary War vet had to raid the arsenal at Springfield to arm his band during his ill-fated rebellion.
So, I don't really care for this "recent scholarship". As any good lawyer knows, stare decisis keeps the collective rights as the "correct" version of the doctrine relating to the Second Amendment, which means I am right and you are wrong. Any "new" or "recent" scholarship is so much bumpf and, as such only, good for picking up my poop from the street. Short of a good policy reason leading to implementation of an individual rights theory becoming the legal doctrine, it is as valid as a geocentric theory of the universe--which of course was once commonly accepted by experts.
One Jurist on my side is Sam Alito!
So keep pushing NRA and other RKBA Morons (you don't even understand what that really means), I am betting on you to bring about the gun ban.
05 April 2006
Question for Sam Alito
As a dog who has seen the inside of more courtrooms than Harriet Miers AND TOLD HER SO, I had a question for Sam Alito.
In his dissent in U.S. vs. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), he neglected to address the the Second Amendment defence made by Rybar.
Was that because he believed the Second Amendment is a collective right (I.e., belongs to the militia, or National Guard), or just an oversight on his part?
Inquiring dogs wish to know!
Next question, how in the heck could he argue that anything was not in interstate commerce? Does he think all people are peasants who don't leave their hometowns (Michael and him would be fabulous friends)?
Not to mention, I may be presenting a case before him at the SCOTUS! Pro bone publico, of course!
After all, I am smarter than the President of the United States!
As for my secret for sneaking into courtrooms, the security in Doylestown was nonexistant until about six months ago, which is part of my success in sneaking into courtrooms. Not to mention I used to go into certain civil courtrooms within the First Judicial district, which is just putting in security. But those are only a few of the many courtrooms I have been in.
In his dissent in U.S. vs. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), he neglected to address the the Second Amendment defence made by Rybar.
Was that because he believed the Second Amendment is a collective right (I.e., belongs to the militia, or National Guard), or just an oversight on his part?
Inquiring dogs wish to know!
Next question, how in the heck could he argue that anything was not in interstate commerce? Does he think all people are peasants who don't leave their hometowns (Michael and him would be fabulous friends)?
Not to mention, I may be presenting a case before him at the SCOTUS! Pro bone publico, of course!
After all, I am smarter than the President of the United States!
As for my secret for sneaking into courtrooms, the security in Doylestown was nonexistant until about six months ago, which is part of my success in sneaking into courtrooms. Not to mention I used to go into certain civil courtrooms within the First Judicial district, which is just putting in security. But those are only a few of the many courtrooms I have been in.
03 April 2006
A little late for this.
Michael has this habit of taking me with him most places he goes in my sherpa bag. That includes court sometimes. So, I've actually been in more courtrooms than Harriet Miers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
