Correct. It is law, but not statutory law.The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.
But it isnt a statute law.
No, it is not. It is the Constitution.The Constitution is a statute.
Correct. It is law, but not statutory law.The Constitution is the Supreme law of the land.
But it isnt a statute law.
No, it is not. It is the Constitution.The Constitution is a statute.
I don't know where you're politics are, but right now you're coming across like one of those "gun owners" who supports "common sense gun control."
No, it is not. It is the Constitution.
No, I'm one of those gun owners who has a lot to lose if I run afoul of the gun laws as currently administered. I'm a realist. In other words, I'm not willing to make myself a test case for the sake of some higher principle. I'm certainly willing to work for pro-gun change within the bounds of the system, and according to what is politically possible. Repealing all gun laws is not politically possible, and never will be.
Again, the 2nd amendment isn't about your personal home defense or hunting rights. A pistol or hunting rifle is all you need for that
It is constitutional law. Law can be: constitutional law (the text), statutory, case law, or regulatory law. (I don't think I missed any, but I may have.) Case law may also be classified as constitutional, contracts, torts, criminal law, etc.How? It's law, and it's not case or regulatory law. It's written and it was passed by a legislature, so it's not popular law. What am I missing?
No, it is not.The militia spoken of in the Constitution is the National Guard.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't grant the militia the right to keep and bear arms. It grants the people the unlimited right to keep and bear arms because of the militia, namely so that they can put it down if the government misuses it.
Look, you're a gunsmith. Spats McGee is a lawyer. The guy had to study the Bill of Right in his Introductory Law classes, and in classes devoted specifically to the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments.How? It's law, and it's not case or regulatory law. It's written and it was passed by a legislature, so it's not popular law. What am I missing?
No one is advocating doing anything that's going to put you prison.
Okay, then it's super statutory law. My point is that it's literal, binding legislation, not a set of guiding principles or some such nonsense. You can't "interpret" it anymore than you can interpret the tax code (boy, wouldn't that be nice).It is constitutional law. Law can be: constitutional law (the text), statutory, case law, or regulatory law. (I don't think I missed any, but I may have.) Case law may also be classified as constitutional, contracts, torts, criminal law, etc.
Like everything else, the National Guard has been taken to unconstitutional places, but it's by far the closest thing to the militia described in Article 1 that exists, and its heritage is the state militia.No, it is not.
The National Guard is a unit of the United States Army, distributed among the States, and under the token command of the Governors thereof. All members of the NG wear a US Army identification lable on their uniforms. They have Geneva Convention ID cards issued to them as well. The Sates pay the personnel, but are reimbursed by DeptArmy for that expenditure.
The Present National Guard might be a Militia, as defined in Article 1 Section 8; but is it most certainly the "organized militia" per the1903 Militia Act.(ref 10 USC 311) which repealed the Militia Acts of 1792. The National Defence Acto of 1916 merely cemented procedures, ensuring uniform pay, service periods, and the like for each of the States.
Note, the several State are allowed, if they care to, to raise State Guards and Militia. Those personnel only answer to the Governonr in that State, and are paid for exclusively through State funds. (Which might also be only a stipend or per diem wage.)
Madison told us long ago that the militia was every free man. As did Tench Coxe, who insisted that said militia be equipped with every dread implement of the soldier.
The National Guard has nothing to do with a well-regulated militia. They are a unit of the Army, who operated at the direction of their Governor, by leave of the Chief of Staff of the Army. They are not every common man, but a select, uniformed, standing military unit.
Where is that facepalm emoji? The standard definition of militia at the time it was written was every able bodied free male between the ages of 18 and 60. They were to supply a longarm and powder and shot for 60 shots.
Look, you're a gunsmith. Spats McGee is a lawyer. The guy had to study the Bill of Right in his Introductory Law classes, and in classes devoted specifically to the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments.
I'm a gunsmith, who served as a paralegal for a short while. I think I'll believe his legal definitions over yours, just as I'd believe your AR build advice over his.
You do understand that our courts have been interpreting law since Marbury v. Madison, right? And that courts naturally must interpret laws?Okay, then it's super statutory law. My point is that it's literal, binding legislation, not a set of guiding principles or some such nonsense. You can't "interpret" it anymore than you can interpret the tax code (boy, wouldn't that be nice).
No, it's not that, either. It's constitutional law. It's a separate beast unto itself.Okay, then it's super statutory law.
Okay, but the Constitution is no more flexible than any statute. It's meant to be interpreted literally. Take counterfeiting, for example. The courts will never rule that it's okay to counterfeit an occasional single here an there. If you print one single dollar bill and the secret service finds out about it then they're going to take you to the mat and the courts will always rule that counterfeiting a single bill on your home printer is still counterfeiting, just as surely as if you'd printed an entire warehouse of twenties using stolen plates.You do understand that our courts have been interpreting law since Marbury v. Madison, right? And that courts naturally must interpret laws?
Jeez, man, I was being sarcastic.No, it's not that, either. It's constitutional law. It's a separate beast unto itself.
. It's meant to be interpreted literally. .
You're totally right. We shouldn't ever question authority, even when that authority is clearly off the reservation. That's not what this country is about.Maybe the Constitution should of said that Grampajack would resolve such issues instead of the Supreme Court....?
You're totally right. We shouldn't ever question authority, even when that authority is clearly off the reservation. That's not what this country is about.
Then I don't know what your point is. Your whole line of argument thus far has been that the supreme court rulings are gospel and should just be accepted.Your reply clearly shows you interpreted my question incorrectly; I didn't say anything about not questioning authority.
The tax code is interpreted all the time, through IRS regulations, rulings, and court cases.You can't "interpret" it anymore than you can interpret the tax code (boy, wouldn't that be nice).
Your whole line of argument thus far has been that the supreme court rulings are gospel and should just be accepted.
My apologies. I missed the sarcasm.Jeez, man, I was being sarcastic.
That's not possible. It is not possible to determine whether a particular statute is an "infringement" unless and until someone (SCOTUS, for example) determines what "an infringement" is.Okay, but the Constitution is no more flexible than any statute. It's meant to be interpreted literally.
Actually, yes, they do. To put it in 2A terms, take a look at the Abramski case:Nobody ever claims that ordinary statutes are "living documents" or "guiding principles," and it doesn't mean a blasted thing if they're two hundred years old. Until legally repealed or replaced, they stand, and if you run afoul of one you're going to jail.
SCOTUS said:. . . .
In answering that inquiry, we must (as usual) interpret the relevant words not in a vacuum, but with reference to the statutory context, “structure, history, and purpose.” Abramski v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 2259, 2267, 189 L. Ed. 2d 262 (2014)
I believe it was a SCOTUS Justice who once said something to the effect of, "We're not final because we're infallible. We're infallible because we're final."Then I don't know what your point is. Your whole line of argument thus far has been that the supreme court rulings are gospel and should just be accepted.
The Constitution is the primary source of constitutional law. Those provisions are then given more specific meaning through the enactment of statutes, which are then interpreted by the courts.So the Constitution itself is apparently not constitutional law, but rather constitutional law is something that is derived from the constitution.
And of course statutory law is anything that is enacted on paper by a legislature. So strictly speaking, I don't see why the Constitution can't be defined as a set of statutes.
The Court has said, therefore, that such regulations are not "infringement."
My apologies. I missed the sarcasm.
I do hope you're not saying that I don't speak English. I've been engaged in litigation for about 15 years and about 10 of those years were as a constitutional litigator. I'm pretty well versed in both the English language & constitutional issues.Which is a serious problem for anyone who speaks English.
You do realize that you're interpreting the constitution, right?The literal definition of infringe means to limit or encroach on something. You could render the 2nd Amendment as "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited."
Again, you are interpreting the constitution, all while you argue that it's not subject to interpretation.I realize that all laws are interpreted everyday, which is why I wrote "interpreted" in regards to how the Constitution is treated these days. There are reasonable and unreasonable interpretations, and anyone who has any command of the English language can see how truly unreasonable the supreme court has been in its interpretations of the 2nd Amendment.
I do hope you're not saying that I don't speak English. I've been engaged in litigation for about 15 years and about 10 of those years were as a constitutional litigator. I'm pretty well versed in constitutional issues.
You do realize that you're interpreting the constitution, right?
Again, you are interpreting the constitution, all while you argue that it's not subject to interpretation.
Not a problem for me. For you, maybe. You clearly have an opinion on these matters, but not all opinions are equal. I don't ask my plumber to review my motions for summary judgment, and he doesn't ask me how to fix my sink. . . .Maybe that's your problem...
Reductio ad Absurdum. Most "average folk" can tell the difference between the English language and math.Well, by your standards, four is an interpretation of two plus two, but us average folk call it a fact.
You'll believe what you want, but I'll stick with reading SCOTUS rulings and interpreting them.It's subject to interpretation, not "interpretation."