Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: The meaning of the Second Amendment (One Perspective) [View all]jimmy the one
(2,712 posts)hans: .. I do not believe the Collective Rights theory is a reasonable one. The Collective Rights Theory (Silveira, 9th Circuit) denied there was any individual right involved withe RKBA. But that proposition lost 9-0 in Heller, as even the dissenters disagreed with Silveira on that point.
I rebutted your obnoxious LIE above last march, showed you to misrepresent, & you have the unmitigated gall to come back 4 months later with the same LIE. That is appalling, demonstrates your duplicity.
hansberry first wrote, march23,2013: .. the dissents {breyer, stevens et al} in Heller also found for an individual right enforceable by individuals.., and that the "collective right" theory espoused in Silveira lost 9-0 in the supreme court. From dissent authored by Breyer:{Proposition 1 below} The Amendment protects an individual righti.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred.
Justice breyer in fuller context shows hansberry for a charlatan: (Breyer): In interpreting and applying this Amendment, I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and todays opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes:
(Proposition) (1)?The Amendment protects an individual righti.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred;
(2)?As evidenced by its preamble, the Amendment was adopted with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of forces. Miller(1939);
(3)?The Amendment must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. Miller..
(4)?The right protected by the 2nd Amendment is not absolute, but instead is subject to government regulation. Robertson v. Baldwin, (1897).
Breyer was NOT contending he, nor the 'entire court' of 9 justices, considered 2ndA an individual right, or that all 9 rejected the collective rights theory. Justice Breyer, in proposition 1 above, was simply noting that the 2ndA when considered AS an individual right was ONE of the several 2ndA interpretations which exist today.
And so you see how hans reached his abominable notion that there was a 9-0 ruling for an individual rkba, in heller.
More on same: Mar 29, 2013, 05:05 PM jimmy the one 36. Hans thought that there was unanimous 9-0 consent by the heller scotus, based on hans error in thinking breyer was speaking of the 2ndA as an individual right, when breyer was simply suggesting the 2ndA hypothetically considered AS an individual right, would not have invalidated DC handgun ban.
Here's what hans wrote in the OP: While the deniers howled loudly that the Heller majority overturned recent lower court opinions, they failed to mention that the dissents in Heller also found for an individual right enforceable by individuals (contrary to Silveira and Hickman), and that the "collective right" theory espoused in Silveira lost 9-0 in the supreme court.
{hans continues} From Heller dissent authored by Breyer: "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."
Hans lifted breyer out of context - justice breyer was NOT contending that is what 2ndA entailed, he was simply stating the definition of what an individual right was, and suggesting that even if the 2ndA were considered as an individual right, DC handgun ban would still be legal.
wiki explains it: Justice Breyer filed a separate dissenting opinion, joined by the same dissenting Justices, which sought to demonstrate that, starting from the premise of an individual-rights view, {DC}'s handgun ban and trigger lock requirement would nevertheless be permissible limitations on the right.
jmg, to hans: Thanks (Again)! I'll check out Aymette, and some others too!
You might wanna check on this too, from the top, jmg, to see what you're dealing with: http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172116130
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)