Constitutional Law Text book and 2nd Amendment

[DaveTN]

I’m not missing your point; I’m pointing out that no one in a law school cares what your feelings are. Your grades are important; a debate on the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> in law school is not.

Mcurrier is right; it’s about procedure and thought process. They have heard every imaginable argument about the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment as have all of us here. If a Professor wanted me to debate the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment, I would ask him which side he wants me to take because I can do an excellent job with either.

I don’t think too many Professors are going to grade a paper based on your opinion. But you seem poised to dispute your grade or call for the firing of a professor if they do. Good luck with that.

[tntnixon]

I know you have strong feelings about 2A, we all do. I'm not telling you to change your ideals. I'm just trying to help you get a good enough GPA to get into law school. And if your wanting to be a big Constitutional Law guy, it better be a very good law school. Most state school guys end up as local litigators or doing wills and divorces (not that there's anything wrong with that).

My point is you need to get the degree first and foremost, then you can have an opinion and champion whatever cause you like.

I see on your profile that you are a ex-military guy. You wouldn't disobey an order because you didn't agree with it, would you?

Take that same approach with college. The professor, more or less, is your comanding officer. You need to do what they ask in order to get your degree. That's how I made it through college and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

One little caveat though, if you're ever nominated for the Federal Bench or run for public office, someone will find your college papers and use them against you. That's just how the world works.

[Guest Gun Geek]

I’m not missing your point; I’m pointing out that no one in a law school cares what your feelings are. Your grades are important; a debate on the 2^nd in law school is not.

Mcurrier is right; it’s about procedure and thought process. They have heard every imaginable argument about the 2^nd amendment as have all of us here. If a Professor wanted me to debate the 2^nd amendment, I would ask him which side he wants me to take because I can do an excellent job with either.

I don’t think too many Professors are going to grade a paper based on your opinion. But you seem poised to dispute your grade or call for the firing of a professor if they do. Good luck with that.

I never said I would call to have them fired, I just said that they probably shouldn't be teaching. As mentioned there are ways to go about disputing a grade if you feel it is adversely effected by an opinion.

I see on your profile that you are a ex-military guy. You wouldn't disobey an order because you didn't agree with it, would you?

Take that same approach with college. The professor, more or less, is your comanding officer. You need to do what they ask in order to get your degree. That's how I made it through college and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

One little caveat though, if you're ever nominated for the Federal Bench or run for public office, someone will find your college papers and use them against you. That's just how the world works.

To answer the question, as far as an order I didnt agree with no, but if the order is illegal then yes, the military provides a way to go about this as well. You are never required to follow an order that is illegal or immoral (what ever that means). That being said there is a big difference in school and the military, or law enforcement. I cant see a professor as a commanding officer, to much of a difference there.

I have always had disagreements with teachers, Jr. High and High school, I had a reputation for it. Hell even AIT for the military I had disagreements with the instructors. While I disagreed, I was always professional in showing my side of the argument. As stated I have already got my Associates degree and in that had many disagreements with my Professors, you dont have to agree just to get a good grade. Not trying to boast but, I graduated Summa Cum Laude despite any disagreements I might have had. Sometimes you have to work twice as hard to show your side of the disagreement, but as mentioned if they grade based on a view point alone, then they shouldn't be teaching.

[Guest Gun Geek]

P.S. see why I am going into law... I like to argue.

[Guest Muttling]

Your nack for debate (I won't say argument as that implies something more heated) is obvious and skill that will serve you well. You are staying to the facts as much as you are to your views and keeping your panties out of a wad. You have many gifts that will serve you well.

In my amatuer experience (e.g. I'm not an attorney but I have spent a quite a bit of time in court rooms as a professional engineer and as a bankruptcy paralegal), your next step should be learning to win in the eyes of whomever stands in judgement instead of your own eyes.

In a court case, the judge stands in judgement and is strictly dictated to by the laws. In a college course, the professor stands in judgement and has a LOT of opportunity to introduce prejudice.

Professors (like you) tend to enjoy well thought out debates and opposing views, this is a great part of what makes American colleges so superior. It is a culture that fosters opposing views and pationate debate (not really argument.)

Take the approach of being respectful and respectfully disagreeing while backing your argument up with well founded fact.

In this situation, learn every 2nd Ammendment ruling inside and out. Be able to name them as well as pull out every nuance when discussing them. Your professors won't agree with you and changing their minds is an unreasonable goal, but you should be able to garner their respect which will serve you tremendously well.

On a final note, expect to be asked to argue for the opposing view from time to time. This is what good attorneys are often required to do. Doing it well doesn't mean you accept the view, it means that you are mature enough to do the job and to understand views that you don't agree with.

[TMMT]

I really hope you go to law school and practice law, to fight the good fight.

But I think,from reading your posts here... that you are in for a rude awakening once you are there.

[Guest Gun Geek]

I am going to law school to help fight the good fight. And not really, I know what to expect. I was just mad at the text book's complete disregard for teaching at least something about ALL of the amendments. At least give them a chapter or even a sub chapter, give your intro some backing if you know what I mean.

Believe me I know what lies ahead. It wont be easy especially because I can agree to disagree but not just agree to agree. Like I said, sometimes to put something forth that others disagree with you have to put in twice as much effort. I am not afraid of a little extra work.

[1gewehr]

Actually, the book is correct. The important part is this: "The Second Amendment properly read, protects right to bear arms only when they are kept to fulfill militia obligations, not when they are used for hunting, recreation, self-protection, or other purposes."

Keep in mind that the 'militia'consists of all persons capable of bearing arms. And that the militia are to be armed with the arms in common use by by the military. So, if you REALLY want to obey the law, we should each own an M16 or M4.

[Guest Gun Geek]

I am going to have to disagree with you there. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense. After all for a militia is for defense and for it to exist the people must have guns.

We can debate on that all day as it has been done to death, where the punctuation is greatly changes the sentence.

[DaveTN]

I am going to have to disagree with you there. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense. After all for a militia is for defense and for it to exist the people must have guns.

We can debate on that all day as it has been done to death, where the punctuation is greatly changes the sentence.

Grammar is as important as the text or the law. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment has nothing to do with your self-defense or anyone else’s. If you want to tie your right to self-defense to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment you will never have that right.

[TMMT]

Actually, the book is correct. The important part is this: "The Second Amendment properly read, protects right to bear arms only when they are kept to fulfill militia obligations, not when they are used for hunting, recreation, self-protection, or other purposes."

Keep in mind that the 'militia'consists of all persons capable of bearing arms. And that the militia are to be armed with the arms in common use by by the military. So, if you REALLY want to obey the law, we should each own an M16 or M4.

I'll take my M249 and a crate of hand grenades!

[Guest jackdm3]

Grammar is as important as the text or the law. The 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment has nothing to do with your self-defense or anyone else’s. If you want to tie your right to self-defense to the 2<SUP>nd</SUP> amendment you will never have that right.

To add to this. My local paper, The Commercial Appeal, receives lots of fluffy letters to the editor about this and that. Since the gun issue arose a year ago, I saw letters fromand to the editor worded as such to deny us the right to carry. I didn't feel the need to vent a lot of gas like others so I simply wrote this and they actually printed it:

"Self-protection is universal right (Their title)

We don't need the Constitution to give us the right to protect ourselves with force equal to that of our aggressors. This right exists around the globe regardless of boundary or sanction."

[Oh Shoot]

...

We don't need the Constitution to give us the right to protect ourselves with force equal to that of our aggressors. This right exists around the globe regardless of boundary or sanction."

The UK is on line 2.

- OS

[Guest Muttling]

I am going to have to disagree with you there. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense. After all for a militia is for defense and for it to exist the people must have guns.

We can debate on that all day as it has been done to death, where the punctuation is greatly changes the sentence.

As I said before, do your research dude. Get GOOD............no not good....Get GREAT at this argument.

Right now, you are presenting your opinion. Come up with quotes and judgements that support your opinion. Get to know all the 2A rulings inside and out then trash your opponents with citations instead of personal opinions.

For the record, I agree and fully support your view point. My only intent is to help you establish an argument based on U.S. law and U.S. court rulings instead of your personal interpertation of the laws.

[Guest jackdm3]

The UK is on line 2.

- OS

And Australia is on line 3. They are all going to learn. *********! Considering all the others, I LOVE AMERICA!!!

*(reference to cats)

Edited December 2, 2009 by jackdm3

[Guest Gun Geek]

Grammar is as important as the text or the law. The 2^nd amendment has nothing to do with your self-defense or anyone else’s. If you want to tie your right to self-defense to the 2^nd amendment you will never have that right.

I agree with you on grammar, all I am saying is that topic can be debated to death as to where the punctuation is in the Second Amendment. They have been arguing on how it is read for years and years.

I'll take my M249 and a crate of hand grenades!

I'll stick with the M16 it is much lighter to carry, just throw the M203 on there and it is good to go.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Gun Geek

[1gewehr]

I am going to have to disagree with you there. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms for self defense. After all for a militia is for defense and for it to exist the people must have guns.

During the Colonial days through the Revolution, the militia was not primarily for 'self-defense'. It was the all-purpose community workforce. When bandits roamed the highways, you called out the militia. If a courthouse needed to be built, the militia provided the labor. If a tornado ravaged the town, the militia cleared the debris, built shelters as needed, and collected food and supplies for the destitute.

And when it became necessary to overthrow the British rule, it was the militia which provided the bulk of the manpower as well as the logistical support to accomplish that task. And every man was expected to show up with a working firearm, preferably of military pattern, as well as ammunition, and equipment.

The Federal government has no control over the militia EXCEPT to provide guidelines for how it should be equipped. That is, to determine the minimum standards of armament, caliber, etc. When the Civil War destroyed the militia system, it destroyed a 1000-year tradition of citizens providing the main military and police force for the community and State.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Sigh. AS a LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE from a TOP 25 law school... There is a reason this Con Law book does not look at the 2nd A. Since, it seems, this will be your FIRST Con Law course, it will be on certain BASICS -

To use a different course of study, Math, one does not directly go from 1+1 to Engineering Calculus.

True, the author does seem to show a little bias. Not surprising, as all lawyers I know have their opinion, and their biases.

SUGGESTION: Do not go in rocking the boat. It will only get you failed out. Go in with an open mind, even if you think the book, and even the professor, is biased.

Pick your battles - you are not even considered a 1L, yet. And trust me, the professor, and the administration, will look at you as a larvae.

And for those who go on and on pimping that BULL about Lawyers being liberal, get REAL... You have bought the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

I suggest you STUDY up before making blind comments.

FYI: For those BUYING the "Liberal Courts" BULL - 62% of all Federal Appeals Court Judges are Republican appointed, and Conservatives Appointees are MAJORITY on 10 out of 13 Appeals Courts... A FULL 1/3 were appointed by George W Bush. 6 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices are Republican Appointees.

<-One CONSERVATIVE Esquire...

AS for the 2ND A - There is reason to believe the Founding Fathers were looking at it from a different perspective than the present day. Effectively, there is some proof the Founding Fathers were looking to do what is done in other Nations, such as Switzerland. There, at age 18 all able body citizens, both men and women, go thru military training. At the end of the training they are supplied with a military assault rifle and ammo. They are to keep this rifle until age or infirmary prevents its effective use.... FYI: Look at how much gun crime there is in Switzerland... and wonder why the Founding Fathers did not follow through...

Edited December 2, 2009 by HvyMtl

[Guest Revelator]

Sigh. AS a LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE from a TOP 25 law school...

Brag fail. Nobody cares where you went to law school.

[Guest Muttling]

Sigh. AS a LAW SCHOOL GRADUATE from a TOP 25 law school...

Brag fail. Nobody cares where you went to law school.

DUDE!!!! Stop confusing the issues with the facts. You know how much that annoys him.

[Guest HvyMtl]

sigh. Not a brag fail - actually wish I had not gone. But hey, feel free to act that way.

Using the truth to say - have law school experience - OP, don't screw yourself. What is wrong with that? I guess I should have just said - went to law school and it was a waste - go lie down till the feeling passes and go for better paying, less stressful jobs?

And Muttling? I did not mis-state facts...\

Oh and when attys say "Brag Fail" that means they did not go to a top 25 school. (LOL, plz take as joke, as I take your comment as one...)

But hey, since you are pro-2nd A - what fields you practice -I'll recommend you... never crap on someone who can send money your way...

Edited December 3, 2009 by HvyMtl

[Guest Revelator]

I know what you mean about law school. While I enjoy my occupation I think law school is for the most part just a big money racket and does not prepare you to practice law. What it prepares you for is the bar exam. You're pretty much just thrown to the wolves afterward. But if you stick with it you'll find what you like, because there are many, many different types of law to practice--government, big firms, small firms, solo practice and so on.

[mcurrier]

I know what you mean about law school. While I enjoy my occupation I think law school is for the most part just a big money racket and does not prepare you to practice law. What it prepares you for is the bar exam.

Exactly. One does not need to go to law school to be a lawyer. You can apprentice in a law firm for several years and then take the bar exam (if they sponsor you). You do not need to go to an actual 'school of law'.

[Guest Gun Geek]

mcurrier, I believe that may be true in TN but not in all states. Some states require law school and admission to the Bar to practice.

[Guest cnrotceagle]

Gun Geek--What edition is the con law book you are quoting? How old is it? It may not pay much attention to the 2nd because until Heller, there really was not a lot of law pertaining to the RKBA.

Also, as an attorney and a recent graduate of law school. We barely talked about the 2nd in my con law classes (which was before Heller) because it did not have a lot of case law or precedent. Con Law in law school is pretty basic because it focuses mostly on settled law law or at least law with a lot of precedent.

Heck last year, I had to remind the one of the con law professors at my school to even teach on Heller. He was just not used to teaching on the RKBA. Law School is a challenge, but it is definitely doable. Just always use reason, facts, citations, and wisdom about when to speak and when to be quiet, and you will be fine.