8 ms·

Could you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no

Could you extrapolate from that though that: 1. Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? 2. Since the second amendment allows the right to keep and bear arms, without further amendment, that right should be unrestricted by any registration process considered onerous or restrictive?

Retra 11y ago
The first amendment doesn't really "allow" anything; it is a prohibition of certain actions by congress.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? Prayer is allowed in schools, government-officer-led prayer is not allowed in public schools.
Deregibus 11y ago
No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.
- ams6110 11y ago
  The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.
  - hga 11y ago
    the government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. Not true in California and I think New York state. Threatened in D.C., and I'm no doubt missing more than a few examples. Needless to say, the majority of US gun owners are opposed to registration (to the point that such a requirement nationwide would light a slow match to a hot civil war; as it is, the post-Sandy Hook registration laws in Connecticut and New York state have been mostly ignored, in these Bluest of states), especially since there are no significant benefits to such schemes. Plenty of us know our 20th Century history as well and the retail and wholesale democide that registration led to abroad.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government. No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
    - themartorana 11y ago
      Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.
      - jonathankoren 11y ago
        I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling
        cgriswald 11y ago
        No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        > The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.
Dylan16807 11y ago
1. There's still the problem that the religious choice of some children is not to pray. You'd be choosing some over others. Schools can and do have a "moment of silence" where students can pray or not, without pressure. 2. Edit: Oh I misread slightly. I agree that registration systems should not be extreme to the point that they impede ownership if they want to be constitutional.
iamsohungry 11y ago
The bill of rights is a set of meta-laws and as such is separated from the problems that laws solve by a level of indirection, and as such they have to be more abstract and general to cover all laws that could be made. I don't think it makes sense to talk about the bill of rights and laws as being the same.
pavel_lishin 11y ago
Prayer is allowed in school. It's coercing others to partake in your religious rituals, as an authority figure working for the government, that's forbidden. (e.g., as a student I can gather other students and pray during lunch, but as a teacher I can't force my students to pray.)
samman 11y ago
2a. "...well-regulated..."
- lackbeard 11y ago
  At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    Well, we've got the armed part down.
  - samman 11y ago
    Seems pretty clear when you put it that way.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  The militia is well-regulated; the right to bear arms is unrestricted.
  - samman 11y ago
    Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?
    - rhino369 11y ago
      To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
      - samman 11y ago
        I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?

Retra 11y ago

The first amendment doesn't really "allow" anything; it is a prohibition of certain actions by congress.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Since the first amendment allows the free exercise of religion, prayer must be allowed in schools as long as no specific religion is established via those prayers? Prayer is allowed in schools, government-officer-led prayer is not allowed in public schools.

Deregibus 11y ago

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.

ams6110 11y ago
The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.
- hga 11y ago
  the government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. Not true in California and I think New York state. Threatened in D.C., and I'm no doubt missing more than a few examples. Needless to say, the majority of US gun owners are opposed to registration (to the point that such a requirement nationwide would light a slow match to a hot civil war; as it is, the post-Sandy Hook registration laws in Connecticut and New York state have been mostly ignored, in these Bluest of states), especially since there are no significant benefits to such schemes. Plenty of us know our 20th Century history as well and the retail and wholesale democide that registration led to abroad.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government. No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.

Dylan16807 11y ago

1. There's still the problem that the religious choice of some children is not to pray. You'd be choosing some over others. Schools can and do have a "moment of silence" where students can pray or not, without pressure. 2. Edit: Oh I misread slightly. I agree that registration systems should not be extreme to the point that they impede ownership if they want to be constitutional.

iamsohungry 11y ago

The bill of rights is a set of meta-laws and as such is separated from the problems that laws solve by a level of indirection, and as such they have to be more abstract and general to cover all laws that could be made. I don't think it makes sense to talk about the bill of rights and laws as being the same.

pavel_lishin 11y ago

Prayer is allowed in school. It's coercing others to partake in your religious rituals, as an authority figure working for the government, that's forbidden. (e.g., as a student I can gather other students and pray during lunch, but as a teacher I can't force my students to pray.)

samman 11y ago

2a. "...well-regulated..."

lackbeard 11y ago
At the time when it was written, "well-regulated" did not mean lots of oversight by the government. It meant something closer to "properly functioning". I.e.: armed and trained sufficiently.
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  Well, we've got the armed part down.
- samman 11y ago
  Seems pretty clear when you put it that way.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
The militia is well-regulated; the right to bear arms is unrestricted.
- samman 11y ago
  Fair point about the separate clauses-- but what's the intent of the "well-regulated" part, then?
  - rhino369 11y ago
    To say that the country needed well managed militias to protect the country. Remember, the first several battles of the revolution were local Massachusetts militias defending their local weapons caches and supplies.
    - samman 11y ago
      I see how that was critical to the nation at the time, but then how is that amendment relevant in the modern world? Standing armed forces protect our national integrity, and state/county/municipal agencies maintain local order. Aren't local militias effectively obsolete?