Kolbe en banc decision

44man said:

when men decide that their God given rights are mere privileges to be taken from them at the whim of society or the government then they no longer deserve their rights and its this kind of thinking that will bring down this great nations. school kids heads are filled with such drivel now but by the next generation these same thoughts will be the law of the land due to the pussification of America. I see it happening with the little snowflakes people raise now as kids, offended by every little thing. their parents aren't raising kids, their raising pussies. pansys for the left.

yes I believe in God given absolute rights. its the way I was raised and taught. the constitution is not a living document, its the law of the land.i also believe in Gods law first, mans law is secondary.

and yes I understand that rights as well as life can be taken from a man. I personally would give up my life before I give up my rights, but again that's how I was raised. right and wrong. black and white. no gray areas, no ********, just the truth and everything else is lies.

and hopefully I will be dead before this great nation sinks into the hands of these pusseies.

Click to expand...

If the Constitution isn't a living document subject to Amendment, etc., then blacks, women, non-landowners, etc. would not have the rights they have now. They have been granted rights through said living document, via the Amendment process.

250 yeas ago, most men believed in God and most men in this country believed in the same God, and those "God given rights". Not as many people believe in God nowadays. Plus, if a right is given by God, why the heck would you ever have to fight another man for said "God given absolute right"? Then, whose God is giving out these rights? Is your God the only God or the only righteous God?

Even if a man is a baby cat, he should have those God give absolute rights without having to lift a finger. Why do we have to fight for life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all and protect those God given rights from others if they are "God given"?

If life were only as simple as black and white, right and wrong. What was wrong yesterday is right today, what was right yesterday is wrong today. Slavery was right, and then it was wrong. Something tells me that slavery is still "right" in places.

How could buying an AR-15 on 9/30/2013 be right, but wrong on 10/1/2013?

Like I've already said, we can have a very, very, very long discussion about inalienable rights and God given rights. Has God actually told us what our rights are? He gave us the Ten Commandments, but does that say what our rights are?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

fabsroman said:

If the Constitution isn't a living document subject to Amendment, etc., then blacks, women, non-landowners, etc. would not have the rights they have now. They have been granted rights through said living document, via the Amendment process.

250 yeas ago, most men believed in God and most men in this country believed in the same God, and those "God given rights". Not as many people believe in God nowadays. Plus, if a right is given by God, why the heck would you ever have to fight another man for said "God given absolute right"? Then, whose God is giving out these rights? Is your God the only God or the only righteous God?

Even if a man is a baby cat, he should have those God give absolute rights without having to lift a finger. Why do we have to fight for life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all and protect those God given rights from others if they are "God given"?

If life were only as simple as black and white, right and wrong. What was wrong yesterday is right today, what was right yesterday is wrong today. Slavery was right, and then it was wrong. Something tells me that slavery is still "right" in places.

How could buying an AR-15 on 9/30/2013 be right, but wrong on 10/1/2013?

Like I've already said, we can have a very, very, very long discussion about inalienable rights and God given rights. Has God actually told us what our rights are? He gave us the Ten Commandments, but does that say what our rights are?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Click to expand...

Slavery was never right. Many things that humans do are not.

If we did not have rights they could not be violated. The ability to negate someones rights does not mean they do not have them.

I suppose you believe someone gave you the right to breath, the right to live? You are born with them. This does not prevent someone from violating them.

Society has nothing to do with what rights you have. It may have the power to suppress and violate them, but they are still yours.

MULE-JK said:

Slavery was never right. Many things that humans do are not.

If we did not have rights they could not be violated. The ability to negate someones rights does not mean they do not have them.

I suppose you believe someone gave you the right to breath, the right to live? You are born with them. This does not prevent someone from violating them.

Society has nothing to do with what rights you have. It may have the power to suppress and violate them, but they are still yours.

Click to expand...

There is no "right to breathe" or a "right to live". Birth, breathe, and life are merely how things go. No rights involved whatsoever. If so, we have murdered countless future people's rights by putting people to death. Imagine all those sperm and eggs that have the right to life and breath.

Nobody gave me the right to life or the right to breath. After birth, I went to breath and luckily for me the area had oxygen in it without any poisons, and I lived past that first breath. Now, the right to life is granted by a law we have in place that prohibits murder. A law put in place by our society. We make the killing of other people sentenced to death legal via laws that have been passed.

What if there were no laws whatsoever. Would people have the right to live and the right to kill? If there was no society with a set of laws, what "rights" would there be? If there was no ten commandments that banned stealing, would people have the "right" to steal?

What about the old saying, "Survival of the fittest"? Did that take into account the rights of others to life and breath?

What if my mother decided she did not want me at birth, covered my mouth and nose before I could ever take that first breath, and suffocated me to death? If there is no law, put in place by society, against murder, what the heck happened to my right to breath and life?

People think they have this God granted, inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but they don't. It is a right granted to us by our society. Rights that were fought for by our founding fathers and the militia of that time time. Rights that we must continue to fight for both in society, in court, and on the battlefield. These are not God given rights or inalienable rights, but rights granted via our society and our blood, sweat, and tears. Rights that can be snatched away in a nano-second.

Why doesn't an embryo have the "right" to life and a first breath, because we have granted women the "right" to choose.

What happened to the Kolbe discussion?

Elliotte said:

I find it a bit interesting that they didn't even mention Miller since Miller basically says "if it's not used by the military it's outside the core of the 2A". I get that Miller was a bad ruling and bad precedent that we want to get rid of if possible, but why not throw it in the mix as a direct counter to the FSA and the 4th's ruling?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing arguing that The People should be allowed to walk around with real machine guns is a bridge too far at this time.

fabsroman said:

If the Constitution isn't a living document subject to Amendment, etc., then blacks, women, non-landowners, etc. would not have the rights they have now. They have been granted rights through said living document, via the Amendment process.

250 yeas ago, most men believed in God and most men in this country believed in the same God, and those "God given rights". Not as many people believe in God nowadays. Plus, if a right is given by God, why the heck would you ever have to fight another man for said "God given absolute right"? Then, whose God is giving out these rights? Is your God the only God or the only righteous God?

Even if a man is a baby cat, he should have those God give absolute rights without having to lift a finger. Why do we have to fight for life, liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness for all and protect those God given rights from others if they are "God given"?

If life were only as simple as black and white, right and wrong. What was wrong yesterday is right today, what was right yesterday is wrong today. Slavery was right, and then it was wrong. Something tells me that slavery is still "right" in places.

How could buying an AR-15 on 9/30/2013 be right, but wrong on 10/1/2013?

Like I've already said, we can have a very, very, very long discussion about inalienable rights and God given rights. Has God actually told us what our rights are? He gave us the Ten Commandments, but does that say what our rights are?

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not make idols.
You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

Click to expand...

Ok, right had always been right and wrong has always been wrong. The difference your speaking of is legal vrs illegal. Many things are and have been legal and wrong at the same time and against Gods law.

Yes my God is the one true just God. But I believe all gods worshiped by others is actually my God, the others are just confused.

And I still believe only landowning tax payers should be able to vote.

And every man has to fight to keep his rights because God gave every man free will so many men want to deprive you of your rights. As do governments run by these type men.

I also believe good and evil are constantly fighting to allow you to keep your rights or to take them away, and I believe the left to truly be evil incarnate.

I could right more but this phone is hard to type on, so it to must be evil

Adolph Oliver Bush said:

What happened to the Kolbe discussion?

Click to expand...

We are trying out some other discussions to keep us busy until SCOTUS figures out if it will take the case. We will know more on the 13th when they will release orders from the conference on the 9th when Kolbe will be discussed.

fabsroman said:

If the Constitution isn't a living document subject to Amendment, etc., then blacks, women, non-landowners, etc. would not have the rights they have now. They have been granted rights through said living document, via the Amendment process.

Click to expand...

That ignores the point. The "living Constitution" view is not that the Constitution can be amended, it is that it means whatever the reader interprets it to mean. Which is to say, the "living Constitution" view dispenses with the need to amend the Constitution in the first place.

How could buying an AR-15 on 9/30/2013 be right, but wrong on 10/1/2013?

Click to expand...

That is exactly what you get when you have a "living Constitution" view, when your view is that what is "right" or "wrong" is a purely subjective thing, determined by the whims of people.

In reality, questions such as the one you raise above can be regarded as misuses of the term "right" and "wrong". If one wishes to escape the obvious pitfalls that arise from a purely subjective definition of "right" and "wrong", one must root them in something objective. Fortunately, there exists such a thing. That thing is known as "harm", something which is describable and often even quantifiable. Under that, something generally becomes "wrong" when it yields actual harm to another, while it is "right" when it's not "wrong".

The undesirability of harm ultimately comes directly from our own instinct of self-preservation, which in turn is baked into us by evolution. Harm to us is undesirable to us because we instinctively react that way when harm comes to us. This makes the notion of harm something that is rooted by an instinct forced upon us by the universe. This is basically as axiomatic as it gets.

Well said

I now have an opportunity to respond with a bit greater depth.

Ranchero50 said:

I've stated it perfectly well several times. Pity you're missing the whole point of my post...

Click to expand...

Really?

The point of your post, ultimately, is that "society" defines rights, defines what liberties one may engage in, etc., and that this renders rights wholly subjective, with no society being any more or less legitimate than any other in that respect.

Would you say that's an accurate assessment of your point?

To insist upon that is to insist that a brutal dictatorship is no worse than a society in which people are generally free to pursue their dreams. But worse, it inexorably leads to the view that "might makes right". This is so because the structure of at least some societies (most notably, those under brutal dictatorships) is determined by people who have the most influence over people who wield force against the rest, and thus if no society is worse or better than any other, then societies which behave as they do as a result of the arbitrary use of force are no worse than societies which behave as they do as a result of free will.

When it comes to any of this, legitimacy is everything. And legitimacy (as well as "wrong" versus "right") in this arena ultimately has its basis in the undesirability of harm. But that ultimately arises directly from our individual instinctive dislike of harm done to ourselves, and thus is rooted in something that is real, observable, forced by nature itself, and individual.

Put another way, the view you appear to espouse, or which is the inevitable logical conclusion of that which you proffer, is objectively incorrect. To insist otherwise is to insist that harm to individuals is ultimately irrelevant. While it is true that societies choose what rights to protect and what rights to infringe upon, they do not choose what rights exist, for rights spring directly from the individual imperative to avoid harm. The right to self-defense is the most direct and fundamental of these. The harm said right addresses is obvious and grave. But other rights also exist for harm avoidance, even if that fact is less obvious. For instance, the right to speech is the direct result of the need for informed decisions, as uninformed decisions result in harm. The right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is a direct response to the harm governments do when they impose unreasonable searches and seizures. The right to a trial by jury is for the purpose of avoiding the harm done through false convictions. Ultimately, individual liberty itself is first and foremost a necessity in effectively avoiding harm, for harm avoidance requires action on the part of the individual, and the ways one might most effectively avoid harm are unique to the individual and the unique circumstances individuals find themselves in. Liberty is, of course, about much more than just harm avoidance, but harm avoidance (whether it is avoidance of direct harm or avoidance of situations that would result in harm) requires individual liberty in any functioning society. As such, it is illegitimate for any society to trample upon individual fundamental human rights, even if said society believes it to be legitimate.


There are many philosophies of societies and such, but I know of none, save for the ones which place individual liberty front and center, which have any kind of basis at all that is both objectively relevant and non-arbitrary. Those that claim to exist for the purpose of alleviating harm but which refuse to acknowledge the immense importance of individual liberty are invalid because they fail to also acknowledge the individual origin of the aversion to harm, something that cannot be validly ignored, as harm is something that is done to individuals, experienced by individuals, disliked by individuals, and ultimately what individuals have both the greatest interest in avoiding and, generally, the greatest ability in avoiding as long as they have the necessary degree of liberty to do so.

shacklefordbanks said:

I'm guessing arguing that The People should be allowed to walk around with real machine guns is a bridge too far at this time.

Click to expand...

But they didn't have to argue it that way. MD & the 4th's argument is that the banned weapons are too similar to military issue weapons and b/c of that it puts them outside the core scope of the 2A. Miller said the exact opposite. Miller said that SBS weren't used by the military, only what the military used (or those very similar) were covered by the core of the 2A. The two opinions are directly opposed.

I thought one of the criteria for cert was an opinion directly in opposition to SC precedent? If so, adding Miller makes it 4 cases against, and not just the 3 more recent gun cases that the libs all hate. Heck, to co-opt their terminology, you can call Miller "longstanding" precedent.

My point was more that since we're already stuck with Miller as precedent, why not actually use it to our advantage?

I believe Heller walked back Miller to a degree that makes it less important to the case. Also, I expect a trap laid for Kolbe's lawyer by the left leaning judges at argument (if there ever is one) that if they overturn the 4th Circuit then NO weapon could be banned including machine guns, nuke missles, etc. (BTW nonsense)

I think it best that the response be, "We are not arguing that position today, just talking about civilian weapons." That's the winner.

shacklefordbanks said:

I believe Heller walked back Miller to a degree that makes it less important to the case. Also, I expect a trap laid for Kolbe's lawyer by the left leaning judges at argument (if there ever is one) that if they overturn the 4th Circuit then NO weapon could be banned including machine guns, nuke missles, etc. (BTW nonsense)

I think it best that the response be, "We are not arguing that position today, just talking about civilian weapons." That's the winner.

Click to expand...

The walk back that Heller did is the heart of the issue in this case. The way I read Heller is that it is limited to small arms that are not NFA items. There is a conflict with machine guns because most are small arms. They tried to address this but did it in a way that is confusing to judges.

There is no trap because you do not need to change the Heller interpretation to have the firearms in question apply to the 2A. The 4CA made up the definition of like that contradicts federal law and ignored the issue about small arms.

Kolbe seems to want to stay away from the militia aspect and I am not sure why. They did not approve the Edwin Vieira amicus brief on the subject. It is the states position that they are useful for this purpose. Kolbe has a weak position demonstrating that they are used for self defense

It really is this simple.

kcbrown said:

The point of your post, ultimately, is that "society" defines rights, defines what liberties one may engage in, etc., and that this renders rights wholly subjective, with no society being any more or less legitimate than any other in that respect.

Would you say that's an accurate assessment of your point?

Click to expand...

In it's most basic form that a society determines rights / legal limitations / freedoms is the whole point. Quit reading more into it and think about it a bit.

Ranchero50 said:

In it's most basic form that a society determines rights / legal limitations / freedoms is the whole point. Quit reading more into it and think about it a bit.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with that. That is what "society" (which can mean "the dictator" or "the elected officials" or whatever, depending on the society) does. But that's not the question at all. The question is whether or not what the society in question does is legitimate.

For instance, suppose that a malevolent dictator forcibly took over the United States. "Society" is now controlled by that dictator. That dictator would then dismantle many of the liberties that we currently have. That's not inconsistent with what you said: "society" has changed.

But what the dictator is doing in that example is illegitimate by very nearly any standard.

Legitimacy is everything in these discussions. To insist otherwise is to insist that might makes right, because it is always through force that laws, edicts, etc., are imposed upon those who would prefer to not follow them. The question is never whether the laws are imposed by whatever mechanisms "society" has for that -- that is always the case. The question is whether or not that imposition is legitimate.


Put another way: what you say is true as far as it goes. But how is it illuminating in any way, or even relevant to the discussion?

mcbruzdzinski said:

Sky Woodward was spoke on the state of 2A in MD and in the US at yesterday's Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association meeting. A great Q&A followed her talk. some of which touched on Kolbe.

Click to expand...

Anything worthwhile on Kolbe? Do they think it has a chance considering the failure of the last few cases?

Did anybody read the reply brief? How do we think they did explaining the "split" in circuit decisions? Do you think the court will buy it? Do they even read these things?

tomorrow is the big day right?

rockstarr said:

tomorrow is the big day right?

Click to expand...

Tomorrow is the first conference in which it will be discussed. The results of the conference will be released on Mon. They will likely relist it for the next conference (21st) with the results of that conference released on the 27th. They have been relisting cases that they grant at least once, but just because the relist it does not mean they will grant it.

SCOTUS has "rescheduled" Kolbe. Probably a good sign.