9th Circuit Ruling

[Haaheo okole puka]

We know that the required 3/4 of the States to ratify an amendment that repeals the second amendment would never be adopted by the required number of states. Nor can they currently muster 2/3 of the states to drive a constitutional convention on the matter. Instead these few States chose to directly violate the second amendment and inconveniently burden the courts with more of their unconstitutional legislation. We wonder why the system is failing and its because the judiciary has been overburdened by the legislative body.


~Proud A-hole

[Haaheo okole puka]

Hereontheprimaledge.

Those words were not scribed under the definition of modern usage. They were scribed under the definition of their meaning at the time. Well regulated means to be of good working order, it does not mean to govern or legislate. A militia is an armed citizenry. The right to keep and bear arms was and always has been a naturally recognized primary right. The second amendment does not establish the right to keep and bear arms that was already a given. The second orders that this already existing inherent natural primary right shall not be infringed. The right to self protection, practice to be in good working condition etc.

~Proud A-hole

[Guest]

This post has steered away from unsubstantiated rhetoric and into the realm of logic and reasoned ideas. It will be locked shortly despite its importance to hawaii and our country.

[myomy]

For a thread started with no desire "in starting a gun debate", this thread seems to be turning into the same-old-same-old. Only tangentially related to Puna/Hawaii with the conversation dominated by 'the usual suspects'. If someone chastises posters to get it back on the rails, that will last about 2 postings before it will be off the rails again. Makes me wonder if, as they say, "the lady doth protest too much..." and that the intent was really more to rekindle the gun debate.

[Haaheo okole puka]

Like it or not this is a current matter of this area and the opinion of the 9th we are accountable to unless struck by the SCOTUS.

"In short, the meaning of the Second Amendment is a matter not merely of
abstract dictionary definitions but also of historical practice. As “[n]othing but
conventions and contexts cause [language] to convey a particular idea,” we begin
our analysis of the scope of the Second Amendment right by examining the text of
the amendment in its historical context. See Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts xxvii (2012)."


~Proud A-hole

[Guest]

I don't think we should down play the ruling and its importance and relevance to hawaii. Though the debate exists here, if you respect individual rights and the supreme law of the land, then there is no debate, even in puna. Its because people here are in denial of reality that they even believe a debate exists.

This court ruling confirms the truth, no matter if you like it or not.

[oink]

@HereOnThePrimalEdge
I suggest you read the ruling (I'm still working through it). It addresses and rejects your interpretation early on.

Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Haaheo okole puka

Hereontheprimaledge.

Those words were not scribed under the definition of modern usage. They were scribed under the definition of their meaning at the time.

---

I'm not an expert of the English language circa late 1700's. But let's say (for the sake of a spirited argument) that your definition is true.

During the late 1700's it was also true the weapons used were limited to single shot muskets and the like. So if the English language of that time provides our definition for the phrase "well regulated," isn't it just as important that the technology of the time guide our usage of what types of guns can be used under the 2nd Amendment? That is, if we want to adhere to a strict interpretation of both grammar and gun usage by the founding fathers when they wrote the Amendment?

[Guest]

Primal edge you are correct. We need to under stand the spirit and environment in which the second was written. The founding fathers were resisting the tyranny of the british government trying to confiscate their arms. They believed the people should have the full power of the government and they should have whatever arms the government, their potential enemy and oppressor had. In modern times this means even "assault rifles" our whatever made up term you want for astheticaly scary guns such as these rifles which kill fewer people in this country them hammers do.

[Rob Tucker]

Okay folks... there are lots of sites to go to and fro on the 2d Amendment. Not here. If you can't keep this directly related to Hawaii or Puna it will end.

Assume the best and ask questions.

Punaweb moderator