[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by spence

I believe that's exactly what I had said...and that the Administration doesn't appear to be deviating much from guiding law.

That "guiding law' can guide no more . . . It no longer has any precedential value; it has been invalidated by higher authority. The fact is, the interpretations / theories promulgated by those lower federal courts never had any representation in the Supreme Court, that "guiding law" was a product of those lower courts ignoring and dismissing SCOTUS.

By invalidating lower court inventions and diversions SCOTUS brought the "guiding law" back into the constitutional fold. The administration just hasn't gotten the message yet . . .

Originally Posted by spence

An assertion like that (abandoned by nearly all) should really be backed up with data.

In McDonald the majority slapped down the minority for "repackaging one of the chief arguments that we rejected in Heller". The "collective / state / militia right" theories are officially dead now. Government attorneys in RKBA / 2nd Amendment cases since McDonald have avoided any mention of collective / state / militia conditioned rights and have all focused on arguing for a rational basis or a form of Breyer's goofy "interest-balancing inquiry" standard of scrutiny.

The hodge-podge of collective / state / militia conditioned rights will not be argued again in a court until it is heard by a receptive panel at the SCOTUS.

I also say "abandoned by nearly all" as someone who has been debating gun rights / gun control online since 1993 (the dark ages as it is known by gun rights supporters, when your side was "winning").

I can honestly tell you that it is very, very difficult to find a debate such as this, discussing the constitutional points and rights theory.

Those arguing a gun control position based in constitutional interpretation have pretty much evaporated. Yeah, gun debate still exists but the foaming mouth animosity in the left for gun rights and especially gun rights organizations like the NRA control the discussion. With philosophical arguments gone, gun debate, especially in political forums, has devolved to scat throwing monkey level. It is seeing that anger and hatred that I draw my "holding pattern" conclusions from.

Originally Posted by spence

I think the Administrations behavior in the first two years where they had a majority in Congress is a good indicator of future behavior. Even with a second Obama term the likely hood of such a commanding position is unlikely.

Heller was published five months before the election and the McDonald challenge in the 7th Circuit was filed the day after Heller came down. Whatever gun control that was dreamed of for an Obama presidency and Democrat Congress swept in with him before June of '08 would need to wait until the Court is a slam-dunk. We are in a holding pattern right now (at least for above board actions ).

Originally Posted by spence

The court of public opinion seems to consistently believe in the right of regulated gun ownership and most policy will likely chart along this course.

Until they have a SCOTUS opinion to wave in our faces . . .

Originally Posted by spence

Well sure, but in that light an aggressive (I don't think hostile is appropriate) position would only serve to undermine future Democratic elections.

No, hostile is appropriate.

With as you note, the current lack of public support for gun control it would be difficult for Dems to retain or gain offices if legislation was pushed through. For most of the gen-pop the gun control issue is more of a cultural issue, urban vs rural etc. As we see now, those voters are placated by a SCOTUS ruling and focus on other issues.

The debate we are having on the Constitution and the legitimate powers of government make their eyes gloss over or are simply over their heads. Like abortion and gay rights the extremes are the motivated actors and most people are turned off by what passes for discourse between them.

As I said before, there has been no epiphany, there is no respect for gun owners among the Democrat power structure, nor is there any acceptance of the Heller and McDonald holdings in the majority of the left.

An honest answer please . . .

All things equal, had Heller not been heard and decided in 2008 would the Obama administration's gun control "agenda" been different? Given no Heller and the same non-action you are holding up, would you still be happily touting the then Democrat controlled Congress and President Obama's non-record on gun control 3-1/2 years in?

Originally Posted by spence

It's laughable if you're on the fringe. To the rest of us it's common sense.

An honest answer to the above question proves my 'laughable" characterization . . .

Is it really your position that Obama can now be counted upon to defend gun rights and respect the traditions of hunting, target shooting and gun collecting and the diverse cultures of gun owners across this nation?

I must ask, when will his judicial appointments begin reflecting this new, "common sense" respect for gun rights?

Originally Posted by spence

The reality is that Democrats feel they have bigger fish to fry, oh, and a lot of them like to hunt also.

I post in the Gungeon at Democratic Underground . . . There are many committed Democrats who are ardent supporters of gun rights and detest the party platform and call it what it is, hostile to the true progressive principles of civil liberty.

Originally Posted by spence

Steven's dissent appears to be validating the right of the individual in context of how it has been historically been used.

Steven's dissent is an exercise in buffoonery masquerading as hypocrisy and incompetence. Turning his back on principles he has built his reputation upon (his fondness for Harlan's dissent in Poe) and numerous errors in law (which also implicates his clerks and the other minority Justices who signed on).

It is sad really . . .

Originally Posted by spence

Certainly a member of a militia is an "individual" owning a weapon...but the Second Amendment, in simple to understand terms, states the individual has the right to own arms for that purpose. The right is granted for the purpose of the collective to be executed by the individual.

The only "simple to understand terms" that matter are the clear statements of the Supreme Court:

• " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

So when did the above reverse meaning so, " . . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a right granted by the Constitution. It it is entirely dependent upon a modern interpretation of that instrument for its existence." ????

How can you defend reading words UPON WHICH THE RIGHT DOES NOT, IN ANY MANNER DEPEND into creating dependencies, conditions, qualifications and restraints on the exercise of the right?

Originally Posted by spence

So yes, the individual has rights, but without a declaration of scope to those rights there's not a lot of benefit.

So rights only have meaning and purpose when the government frames them and explains to us their extent?

Originally Posted by spence

Perhaps it could be used to overturn a total ban on all weapons, but it certainly doesn't say a state can't restrict gun ownership by the individual.

No right is absolute in an ordered society but for fundamental rights the government must make the case for their abridgement.

Originally Posted by spence

9-0 is a bit of spin...

Well, when one considers what the "guiding law" was,

US v Tot (1st circuit link above):

[The Second Amendment] "was not adopted with individual rights in mind, but as a protection for the States in the maintenance of their militia organizations against possible encroachments by the federal power"

ANY recognition of any individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment's protection sphere is a noteworthy refutation of that "guiding law" . . . especially if it is contained in dissents that people have been told represents the opposite of the majority's "individual right" holding .

The Tot "state's right" theory is abandoned by Stevens but he equivocates from his "individual right" opening and parrots a "limited, militia conditioned individual right" which had its genesis in a law review article written in the Spring of 2004 heralding "A New Paradigm for the Second Amendment".

Originally Posted by spence

To the whole thing about the Second Amendment not granting the right, I think it's more to state that the government can't go to far in efforts to keep us safe.

Yeah, that's it. The fundamental principles of inherent and inalienable rights really just comes down to a government keeping us safe (but not too safe???).