Justice Breyer

[9teeneleven]

There are two ways. One is that -- look at -- all you have to do is look at the briefs. Look at the statistics. You know, one side says a million people killed by guns. Chicago says that their -- their gun law has saved hundreds, including - and they have statistics -- including lots of women in domestic cases. And the other side disputes it. This is a highly statistical matter. Without incorporation, it's decided by State legislatures; with, it's decided by Federal judges.

Now, think of this, too: That when you have the First Amendment, or some of the other amendments, there is always a big area where it's free speech versus a whole lot of things, but not often free speech versus life. When it's free speech versus life, we very often decide in favor of life. Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life. Statistics, balancing life versus guns. How are Federal judges in your opinion, rather than legislatures in the States in a Federal system, how are Federal judges supposed to carry this out? I want to see where we are going.

I am stunned that supreme court justice could make these comments. The first and second amendments are hardly analogous. No court, State or Federal, has ever argued that we should remove people's larynxes because they have the capability of dangerous speech. What has been ruled is that certain kinds of speech are not protected, i.e. certain uses of the capacity to speak. Last time I checked, many uses of guns are not protected by the 2nd amendment (like the obvious one, murder). The 1st amendment protects an action. The only actions that the 2nd amendment protects are protection and defense. The 2nd amendment explicitly says you cannot infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It says nothing about the inability to infringe upon using guns to unlawfully murder people.

You can't shot "fire!" in a crowded theatre, and you can't shoot someone in cold blood.

You don't remove someone's larynx because some people do shout fire in a theatre, and you don't ban guns because some people will murder with them.

I really don't see how this is a hard concept. "Without incorporation, it's decided by State legislatures; with, it's decided by Federal judges." Wrong. It is decided by neither, i.e. "shall not be infringed."

Edited March 3, 2010 by 9teeneleven

[Guest jackdm3]

Isn't this the Justice that's trying to rush an official judgement before he retires in a month or two?

[Kelemvor]

I'm glad we have brilliant men such as this interpreting our Constitution for us.

[sigmtnman]

The fallacy is that it needs to be interpreted as though we are too stupid to understand simple language.

[Tim Nunan]

"Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life. Statistics, balancing life versus guns."

Clearly shows his bias. Totally ignores that a legal use of firearms can save lives.

[Chief07]

Interesting statment.

The barn door is open now with Heller vs. DC.

They can not ban owership but they can make it tough to

obtain firearms.

Some townships have an ordance that say's no discharging a firearm

within the limits of the township.

That bans hunting and firearm sports. Home protection will have to be tested.

[RobD]

I'm always amazed by the willful ignorance of a liberal. Surely the must know deep down in side that the case the make is moronic.....

[robin48]

I'm always amazed by the willful ignorance of a liberal. Surely the must know deep down in side that the case the make is moronic.....

I can no longer be amazed by liberals. I am just standing by getting ready, for when they have what they want and turn America over to the blue hats.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

They will never have what they want, as long as people can read. The spew they

send out eventually gets the light of day and, enough people seeing it eventually see

it for what it is. Thanks for posting this 9teeneleven. I hadn't seen that before. If the Justice chooses to be that muddy, maybe he should retire early.

I just hope the "wise latina" justice doesn't write any dissenting opinions. We would get a lecture on minority victimization along with her opinion and maybe need a translator. This stuff should be a little more plain english without political lawyerese.

[TMMT]

This is ridiculous... I have a hard time believing that Justice Breyer, is not smart enough to grasp the concept of personal responsibly.

Just as you have a personal responsibility to not shout fire in a crowded movie theater, make threats against the Presidents life or engage in slanderous statements that will cause harm to someone.

You have a personal responsibility to not start shooting at people absent lawful justification.

We have laws against shouting fire where there is none, we have laws prohibiting threats against elected officials and laws against slander.

Just as we have laws against aggravated assault and murder.

Why is it beyond the scope of logic here to just say... okay, here is your right, keep and bear your arms. But violate the existing laws of human nature and we will HAMMER YOUR ASS TO THE JAIL CELL WALL!!!

Is there anyone here who is not in favor of hard, meaningful prison time for crimes committed while armed, involving actual violence and penalties up to and including the death penalty where allowed for murder?

[TMMT]

Interesting statment.

The barn door is open now with Heller vs. DC.

They can not ban owership but they can make it tough to

obtain firearms.

Some townships have an ordance that say's no discharging a firearm

within the limits of the township.

That bans hunting and firearm sports. Home protection will have to be tested.

Fortunately there is already case law littering the entire Appellate System up to the USSC, that spells out widely accepted opinions that if such restrictions on services/items/permits/applications/contracts and so on, are to the point that it begins to limit the ability of an average person to obtain any of the above, it becomes discriminatory and a de facto ban. Which the courts have already ruled in other (non-2A) cases is unconstitutional.

Once the 2nd is incorporated then the argument can be made against unreasonable fees for gun permits, extremely complicated application processes and even excessive wait times. All of that opens up and can be argued, if excessive, as a de facto ban. It will happen in DC if this case is ruled for the plaintiff and the 2nd.

Next fight will be the reasonable restriction fight, which will get a bit sticker for both sides. We must be careful and pick a real landmark case, not just someone upset because California still bans high capacity mags. It will need to be a solid winner, with a narrow scope for the courts to consider.

We need to chip away one piece at a time. With careful, well aimed strikes.

[DavidD]

"Here every case will be on one side guns, on the other side human life. Statistics, balancing life versus guns."

Well, he is right. On one side you have those who would take away my guns and the other side is my right to protect my life and those whom I care for. All the while the criminals still have their guns, especially in Chicago. See, It all comes down to how you look at it.