Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:51:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1233 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> > And there's more, but I'll spare you. If you want to see it, go to:
> >
> > http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/time.htm
>
> OK, I did. In 1977 it lists "In Moore v. East Cleveland, the U.S. Supreme
> Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in
> the U.S. Constitution."
>
> What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the
> court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more.
Ah, the dangers of abridged source material. I found a more extensive
discussion of that case at:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/moore.html
It appears that the case involved due process and the right to use one's
property (in this case, residence) as one sees fit, as is spelled out by
this quote:
"When a city undertakes such intrusive regulation of the family, neither
Belle Terre nor Euclid governs; the usual judicial deference to the
legislature is inappropriate."
But within the article, here's the only reference to arms:
"[T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause cannot
be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees
elsewhere provided in the Constitution. This 'liberty' is not a series of
isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom
of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom
from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on. It is a rational
continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial
arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints,... and which also
recognizes, what a reasonable and sensitive judgment must, that certain
interests require particularly careful scrutiny of the state needs asserted
to justify their abridgment."
I would submit, therefore, that it is misleading to say that, from this
particular case, the US Supreme Court has declared "the right to keep and
bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution."
Why, if the US Supreme Court has declared such a guarantee to exist, is
the precise text of that guarantee not included? Why, in effect, must the
author couch his erroneous assertion in a smokescreen of misrepresentation?
And why, finally, must the author point to a non-gun-related case for
support, when numerous cases have gone before the Supreme Court specifically
addressing the alleged right of the private citizen to bear arms?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) You are noting the difference between the "holding" in a decision, and what is termed "obiter dictum." ob·i·ter dic·tum, pl. ob·i·ter dic·ta. 1. an incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc. 2. Law. an incidental or supplementary opinion by a (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Court rules that the right to keep and bear arms is specifically guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution." What does that mean? It seems self-evident and not something on which the court would need to rule. So I assume it means something more. (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
